| Title |
Visual depth processing in Williams–Beuren syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, June 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-005-2355-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. N. Van der Geest, G. C. Lagers-van Haselen, J. M. van Hagen, E. Brenner, L. C. P. Govaerts, I. F. M. de Coo, M. A. Frens |
| Abstract |
Patients with Williams-Beuren Syndrome (WBS, also known as Williams Syndrome) show many problems in motor activities requiring visuo-motor integration, such as walking stairs. We tested to what extent these problems might be related to a deficit in the perception of visual depth or to problems in using this information in guiding movements. Monocular and binocular visual depth perception was tested in 33 patients with WBS. Furthermore, hand movements to a target were recorded in conditions with and without visual feedback of the position of the hand. The WBS group was compared to a group of control subjects. The WBS patients were able to perceive monocular depth cues that require global processing, but about 49% failed to show stereopsis. On average, patients with WBS moved their hand too far when no visual feedback on hand position was given. This was not so when they could see their hand. Patients with WBS are able to derive depth from complex spatial relationships between objects. However, they seem to be impaired in using depth information for guiding their movements when deprived of visual feedback. We conclude that the problems that WBS patients have with tasks such as descending stairs are not due to an inability to judge distance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,451,942
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,077
of 56,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 56,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.