↓ Skip to main content

Navigating beyond “here

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Navigating beyond “here & now” affordances—on sensorimotor maturation and “false belief” performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01433
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Brincker

Abstract

How and when do we learn to understand other people's perspectives and possibly divergent beliefs? This question has elicited much theoretical and empirical research. A puzzling finding has been that toddlers perform well on so-called implicit false belief (FB) tasks but do not show such capacities on traditional explicit FB tasks. I propose a navigational approach, which offers a hitherto ignored way of making sense of the seemingly contradictory results. The proposal involves a distinction between how we navigate FBs as they relate to (1) our current affordances (here & now navigation) as opposed to (2) presently non-actual relations, where we need to leave our concrete embodied/situated viewpoint (counterfactual navigation). It is proposed that whereas toddlers seem able to understand FBs in their current affordance space, they do not yet possess the resources to navigate in abstraction from such concrete affordances, which explicit FB tests seem to require. It is hypothesized that counterfactual navigation depends on the development of "sensorimotor priors," i.e., statistical expectations of own kinesthetic re-afference, which evidence now suggests matures around age four, consistent with core findings of explicit FB performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 33%
Philosophy 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,191,960
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,257
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,212
of 354,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#83
of 357 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 357 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.