↓ Skip to main content

What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback
Published in
Psychological Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0848-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zachary R. King, Nathan L. Tenhundfeld, Jessica K. Witt

Abstract

A critical question for theories of spatial vision concerns the nature of the inputs to perception. The action-specific account asserts that information related to action, specifically a perceiver's ability to perform the intended action, is one of these sources of information. This claim challenges assumptions about the mind in general and perception in particular, and not surprisingly, has been met with much resistance. Alternative explanations include that these effects are due to response bias, rather than genuine differences in perception. Using a paradigm in which ease to block a ball impacts estimated speed of the ball, participants were given explicit feedback about their perceptual judgements to test the response bias alternative. Despite the feedback, the action-specific effect still persisted, thus ruling out a response-bias interpretation. Coupled with other research ruling out additional alternative explanations, the current findings offer an important step towards the claim that a person's ability to act truly influences spatial perception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 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 > Bachelor 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 53%
Sports and Recreations 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,031,903
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#206
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,689
of 310,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 310,726 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.