| Title |
Combining eye and hand in search is suboptimal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-009-1928-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanneke Liesker, Eli Brenner, Jeroen B. J. Smeets |
| Abstract |
When performing everyday tasks, we often move our eyes and hand together: we look where we are reaching in order to better guide the hand. This coordinated pattern with the eye leading the hand is presumably optimal behaviour. But eyes and hands can move to different locations if they are involved in different tasks. To find out whether this leads to optimal performance, we studied the combination of visual and haptic search. We asked ten participants to perform a combined visual and haptic search for a target that was present in both modalities and compared their search times to those on visual only and haptic only search tasks. Without distractors, search times were faster for visual search than for haptic search. With many visual distractors, search times were longer for visual than for haptic search. For the combined search, performance was poorer than the optimal strategy whereby each modality searched a different part of the display. The results are consistent with several alternative accounts, for instance with vision and touch searching independently at the same time. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 42 | 81% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 38% |
| Researcher | 14 | 27% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 31% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 15% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
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 21 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,754,533
of 23,571,271 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#924
of 3,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,033
of 112,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,571,271 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 3,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 112,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.