↓ Skip to main content

Hand proximity effects are fragile: a useful null result

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Hand proximity effects are fragile: a useful null result
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0094-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronald Andringa, Walter R. Boot, Nelson A. Roque, Sadhana Ponnaluri

Abstract

Placing one's hands near an object has been reported to enhance visual processing in a number of ways. We explored whether hand proximity confers an advantage when applied to complex visual search. In one experiment, participants indicated the presence or absence of a target item in a baggage x-ray image by pressing response boxes located at the edge of a tablet computer screen, requiring them to grip the display between their hands. Alternatively, they responded using a mouse held within their lap. Contrary to expectations, hand position did not influence search performance. In a second experiment, participants used their finger to trace along the x-ray image while searching. In addition to any effect of hand proximity it was predicted that this strategy would encourage a more systematic search strategy. Participants inspected bags longer using this strategy, but this did not translate into improved target detection. A third experiment attempted to replicate the near-hands advantage in a change detection paradigm featuring simple stimuli (Tseng and Bridgeman, Experimental Brain Research 209:257-269, 2011), and the same equipment and hand positions as Experiment 1, but was unable to do so. One possibility is that the grip posture associated with holding a tablet is not conducive to producing a near-hands advantage. A final experiment tested this hypothesis with a direct replication of Tseng and Bridgeman, in which participants responded to stimuli presented on a CRT monitor using keys attached to the side of the monitor. Still, no near-hands advantage was observed. Our results suggest that the near-hands advantage may be sensitive to small differences in procedure, a finding that has important implications for harnessing the near-hands advantage to produce better performance in applied contexts.

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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 44%
Other 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 28%
Neuroscience 3 17%
Computer Science 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,075,788
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#212
of 323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,953
of 329,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 329,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.