↓ Skip to main content

Kinematics of ventrally mediated grasp-to-eat actions: right-hand advantage is dependent on dorsal stream input

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Kinematics of ventrally mediated grasp-to-eat actions: right-hand advantage is dependent on dorsal stream input
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5242-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clarissa Beke, Jason W. Flindall, Claudia L. R. Gonzalez

Abstract

Studies have suggested a left-hemisphere specialization for visually guided grasp-to-eat actions by way of task-dependent kinematic asymmetries (i.e., smaller maximum grip apertures for right-handed grasp-to-eat movements than for right-handed grasp-to-place movements or left-handed movements of either type). It is unknown, however, whether this left-hemisphere/right-hand kinematic advantage is reliant on the dorsal "vision-for-action" visual stream. The present study investigates the kinematic differences between grasp-to-eat and grasp-to place actions performance during closed-loop (i.e., dorsally mediated) and open-loop delay (i.e., ventrally mediated) conditions. Twenty-one right-handed adult participants were asked to reach to grasp small food items to (1) eat them, or (2) place them in a container below the mouth. Grasps were performed in both closed-loop and open-loop delay conditions, in separate sessions. We show that participants displayed the right-hand grasp-to-eat kinematic advantage in the closed-loop condition, but not in the open-loop delay condition. As no task-dependent kinematic differences were found in ventrally mediated grasps, we posit that the left-hemisphere/right-hand advantage is dependent on dorsal stream processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 1 17%
Neuroscience 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,350,149
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,567
of 3,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,619
of 335,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#18
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 335,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.