↓ Skip to main content

The stuff that motor chunks are made of: Spatial instead of motor representations?

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
The stuff that motor chunks are made of: Spatial instead of motor representations?
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00221-015-4457-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem B. Verwey, Eduard C. Groen, David L. Wright

Abstract

In order to determine how participants represent practiced, discrete keying sequences in the discrete sequence production task, we had 24 participants practice two six-key sequences on the basis of two pre-learned six-digit numbers. These sequences were carried out by fingers of the left (L) and right (R) hand with between-hand transitions always occurring between the second and third, and the fifth and sixth responses. This yielded the so-called LLRRRL and RRLLLR sequences. Early and late in practice, the keypad used for the right hand was briefly relocated from the front of the participants to 90° at their right side. The results indicate that after 600 practice trials, executing a keying sequence relies heavily on a spatial cross-hand representation in a trunk- or head-based reference frame that after about only 15 trials is fully adjusted to the changed hand location. The hand location effect was not found with the last sequence element. This is attributed to the application of explicit knowledge. The between-hand transitions appeared to induce initial segmentation in some of the participants, but this did not consolidate into a concatenation point of successive motor chunks.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Romania 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 6 13%
Professor 6 13%
Lecturer 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 35%
Neuroscience 11 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,006
of 3,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,811
of 283,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#17
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,229 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 283,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.