↓ Skip to main content

On the optimal viewing position for object processing

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
On the optimal viewing position for object processing
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, November 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13414-015-1025-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lotje van der Linden, Françoise Vitu

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that a visually presented word is processed most easily when participants initially fixate just to the left of the word's center. Fixating on this optimal viewing position (OVP) results in shorter response times and a lower probability of making additional within-word refixations (OVP effects), but also longer initial-fixation durations (an inverted-OVP or I-OVP effect), as compared to initially fixating at the beginning or the end of the word. Thus, typical curves are u-shaped (or inverted-u-shaped), with a leftward bias. Most researchers explain the u-shape in terms of visual constraints, and the leftward bias in terms of language constraints. Previous studies have demonstrated that (I)-OVP effects are not specific to words, but generalize to object viewing. We further investigated this by comparing the strength and (a)symmetry of (I-)OVP effects for words and objects. To this purpose, we gave participants an object- versus word-naming task in which we manipulated the position at which they initially fixated the stimulus (i.e., a line drawing or the written name of an object). Our results showed that object viewing, just as word viewing, resulted in u-shaped (I-)OVP curves. However, the effect was weaker than for words. Furthermore, for words, the curves were biased to the left, whereas they were symmetrical for objects. This might indicate that part of the (I-)OVP effect for words is language specific, and that (I-)OVP effects for objects are a purer measure of the effect of visual constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 32%
Sports and Recreations 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Linguistics 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
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 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,035,952
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#552
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,719
of 393,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#13
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 393,915 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 72% of its contemporaries.