| Title |
Hand anthropometry and the limits of aperture separation determine the utility of Weber’s law in grasping and manual estimation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-018-5311-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naila Ayala, Gordon Binsted, Matthew Heath |
| Abstract |
Recent work proposed that biomechanical constraints in aperture separation limit the utility of Weber's law in determining whether dissociable visual codes support grasping and manual estimation. We tested this assertion by having participants precision grasp, manually estimate and complete a method of adjustment task to targets scaled within and beyond the range of their maximal aperture separation (i.e., from 20 to 140% of participant-specific maximal aperture separation: MAS). For grasping and manual estimation tasks, just-noticeable-difference (JND) scores were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in peak grip aperture, whereas method of adjustment JNDs were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in response output. Method of adjustment JNDs increased linearly across the range of targets; that is, responses adhered to Weber's law. Manual estimation JNDs linearly increased for targets 20-100% of MAS and then decreased for targets 120-140% of MAS. In turn, grasping JNDs for targets 20% through 80% of MAS did not differ and were larger than targets 100-140% of MAS. That manual estimation and grasping showed a decrease in JNDs for the largest targets indicates that participants were at their biomechanical limits in aperture shaping, and the fact that the target showing the JND decrease differed between tasks (i.e., manual estimation = 100% of MAS; grasping = 80% of MAS) is attributed to the fact that grasping-but not manual estimation-requires a safety-margin task-set. Accordingly, manual estimations and grasping across a range of functionally 'graspable' targets, respectively, adhered to and violated Weber's law-a result interpreted to reflect the use of dissociable visual codes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 35% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 29% |
| Psychology | 4 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,775
of 3,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,283
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 3,251 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 328,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.