↓ Skip to main content

Effects of wrist tendon vibration and eye movements on manual aiming

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Effects of wrist tendon vibration and eye movements on manual aiming
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5180-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Lavrysen, Oron Levin, Matthieu P. Boisgontier, Digby Elliott, Werner F. Helsen

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated whether visual information mediates a proprioceptive illusion effect induced by muscle tendon vibration in manual aiming. Visual information was gradually degraded from a situation in which the targets were present and participants (n = 20; 22.3 ± 2.7 years) were permitted to make saccadic eye movements to designated target positions, to a condition in which the targets were not visible and participants were required to perform cyclical aiming while fixating a point between the two target positions. Local tendon vibration applied to the right wrist extensor muscles induced an illusory reduction of 15% in hand movement amplitude. This effect was greater in the fixation than in the saccade condition. Both anticipatory control and proprioceptive feedback are proposed to contribute to the observed effects. The primary saccade amplitude was also reduced by almost 4% when muscle tendon vibration was locally applied to the wrist. These results confirm a tight link between eye movements and manual perception and action. Moreover, the impact of the proprioceptive illusion on the ocular system indicates that the interaction between systems is bidirectional.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 37%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,374,036
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,768
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,765
of 441,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#26
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 441,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.