↓ Skip to main content

Capture of kinesthesis by a competing cutaneous input

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Capture of kinesthesis by a competing cutaneous input
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, June 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13414-012-0327-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

George H. Van Doorn, Jakob Hohwy, Mark A. Symmons

Abstract

In four experiments, blindfolded participants were presented with pairs of stimuli simultaneously, one to each index finger. Participants moved one index finger, which was presented with cutaneous and/or kinesthetic stimuli, and this movement caused a raised line to move underneath the other, stationary index finger in a yoked manner. The stimuli were 180º rotations of each other (e.g., < and >), and thus when a < was traced with the moving finger, it caused a > to be felt at the stationary finger. When asked to report the experience, participants predominantly reported the cutaneous stimulus, seemingly being ignorant of the kinesthetic stimulus. This appears to be an intrahaptic capture phenomenon, which is of interest because it suggests that conflict between intrahaptic sensory stimuli can go unnoticed; sometimes we are unaware of how we moved, and sometimes we do not know what we touched. The results are interpreted in light of optimal integration, perceptual suppression, reafference suppression, and inattentional blindness.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,115,997
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#696
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,891
of 167,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#8
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 55% 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 167,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 73% of its contemporaries.