| Title |
The contribution of stereo vision to one-handed catching
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, June 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-004-1926-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liesbeth I. N. Mazyn, Matthieu Lenoir, Gilles Montagne, Geert J. P. Savelsbergh |
| Abstract |
Participants with normal (StereoN) and weak (StereoW) stereopsis caught tennis balls under monocular and binocular viewing at three different speed conditions. Monocular or binocular viewing did not affect catching performance in catchers with weak stereopsis, while the StereoN group caught more balls under binocular vision as compared with the monocular condition. These effects were more pronounced with increasing ball speed. Kinematic analysis of the catch partially corroborated these findings. These results indicate that StereoW catchers have not developed a compensatory strategy for information pick-up, and that negative effects of a lack of stereopsis grow larger as temporal constraints become more severe. These findings also support the notion that several monocular and/or binocular information sources can be used in the control of interceptive action. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 14 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
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 10 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,453,126
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,687
of 54,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 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 54,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.