↓ Skip to main content

Multiple distance cues do not prevent systematic biases in reach to grasp movements

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, September 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 (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Multiple distance cues do not prevent systematic biases in reach to grasp movements
Published in
Psychological Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00426-018-1101-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl K. Kopiske, Chiara Bozzacchi, Robert Volcic, Fulvio Domini

Abstract

The perceived distance of objects is biased depending on the distance from the observer at which objects are presented, such that the egocentric distance tends to be overestimated for closer objects, but underestimated for objects further away. This leads to the perceived depth of an object (i.e., the perceived distance from the front to the back of the object) also being biased, decreasing with object distance. Several studies have found the same pattern of biases in grasping tasks. However, in most of those studies, object distance and depth were solely specified by ocular vergence and binocular disparities. Here we asked whether grasping objects viewed from above would eliminate distance-dependent depth biases, since this vantage point introduces additional information about the object's distance, given by the vertical gaze angle, and its depth, given by contour information. Participants grasped objects presented at different distances (1) at eye-height and (2) 130 mm below eye-height, along their depth axes. In both cases, grip aperture was systematically biased by the object distance along most of the trajectory. The same bias was found whether the objects were seen in isolation or above a ground plane to provide additional depth cues. In two additional experiments, we verified that a consistent bias occurs in a perceptual task. These findings suggest that grasping actions are not immune to biases typically found in perceptual tasks, even when additional cues are available. However, online visual control can counteract these biases when direct vision of both digits and final contact points is available.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Professor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 33%
Neuroscience 2 17%
Sports and Recreations 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Unknown 4 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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,273,096
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#396
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,050
of 341,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 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 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 341,808 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 26 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 53% of its contemporaries.