| Title |
A right visual field advantage for visual processing of manipulable objects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-012-0106-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frank E. Garcea, Jorge Almeida, Bradford Z. Mahon |
| Abstract |
Information about object-associated manipulations is lateralized to left parietal regions, while information about the visual form of tools is represented bilaterally in ventral occipito-temporal cortex. It is unknown how lateralization of motor-relevant information in left-hemisphere dorsal stream regions may affect the visual processing of manipulable objects. We used a lateralized masked priming paradigm to test for a right visual field (RVF) advantage in tool processing. Target stimuli were tools and animals, and briefly presented primes were identical to or scrambled versions of the targets. In Experiment 1, primes were presented either to the left or to the right of the centrally presented target, while in Experiment 2, primes were presented in one of eight locations arranged radially around the target. In both experiments, there was a RVF advantage in priming effects for tool but not for animal targets. Control experiments showed that participants were at chance for matching the identity of the lateralized primes in a picture-word matching experiment and also ruled out a general RVF speed-of-processing advantage for tool images. These results indicate that the overrepresentation of tool knowledge in the left hemisphere affects visual object recognition and suggests that interactions between the dorsal and ventral streams occurs during object categorization. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 33% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 65% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,114,023
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#592
of 985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,602
of 168,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 168,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.