↓ Skip to main content

Distance perception in an open water environment: Analysis of individual differences

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Distance perception in an open water environment: Analysis of individual differences
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13414-015-1049-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Button, Matthew Schofield, James Croft

Abstract

We investigated whether distance estimation accuracy over open water is influenced by the viewing direction of the observer. Twenty-two healthy students (9 male, 13 female) made 10 distance estimates ranging between 50 and 950 m actual distance in 2 viewing conditions: (1) from shore to boat and (2) from boat to shore. There were no consistent differences in estimation accuracy between viewing directions. The group data revealed a general tendency to underestimate actual distances (74%), but there was considerable interindividual variance (mean error of 74% ± 27%, range = 31% to 145%). A multilevel regression model of estimate accuracy suggests there were three subgroups of participants. One subgroup (N = 4, 18%) were consistent underestimaters, regardless of distance, whereas another subgroup (N = 5, 23%) consistently overestimated. However, the majority (N = 13, 59%) tended to underestimate at shorter distances (less than 400 m) and then overestimate at longer distances. These findings have important implications in survival situations in open water where an individual may need to judge an estimated distance against their perceived swimming capacity in order to self-rescue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Researcher 4 20%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 4 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 15%
Psychology 3 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,726,873
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#305
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,767
of 400,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#10
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 400,148 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.