↓ Skip to main content

Local form interference in biological motion perception

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Local form interference in biological motion perception
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1092-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jess E. Kerr-Gaffney, Amelia R. Hunt, Karin S. Pilz

Abstract

Replacing the local dots of point-light walkers with complex images leads to significant detriments to performance in biological motion detection and discrimination tasks. This detriment has previously been shown to be larger when the local elements match the global shape in object category and facing direction. In contrast, studies using Navon stimuli have demonstrated that local interference on global processing primarily occurs when local elements are dissimilar to the global form. In 3 experiments, we investigated this contradiction by replacing the local dots of a point-light walker with human images or stick figures. Participants were significantly faster and more accurate at discriminating the facing and walking direction of a walker when the local images were facing in the same direction as the global walker than when they were facing in the opposite direction. These results provide support for the idea that organization of biological motion depends on allocation of limited processing resources to the global motion information when the local elements are complex. However, there is more disruption to global form processing when the local elements and global form conflict in task-related properties.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 54%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Linguistics 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 3 11%
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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,467,890
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#277
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,698
of 304,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#6
of 32 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 72nd 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 84% 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 304,102 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.