↓ Skip to main content

Neurocognitive mechanisms of perception–action coordination: A review and theoretical integration

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Neurocognitive mechanisms of perception–action coordination: A review and theoretical integration
Published in
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.05.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Richard Ridderinkhof

Abstract

The present analysis aims at a theoretical integration of, and a systems-neuroscience perspective on, a variety of historical and contemporary views on perception-action coordination (PAC). We set out to determine the common principles or lawful linkages between sensory and motor systems that explain how perception is action-oriented and how action is perceptually guided. To this end, we analyze the key ingredients to such an integrated framework, examine the architecture of dual-system conjectures of PAC, and endeavor in an historical analysis of the key characteristics, mechanisms, and phenomena of PACs. This analysis will reveal that dual-systems views are in need of fundamental re-thinking, and its elements will be amalgamated with current views on action-oriented predictive processing into a novel integrative theoretical framework (IMPPACT: Impetus, Motivation, and Prediction in Perception-Action Coordination theory). From this framework and its neurocognitive architecture we derive a number of non-trivial predictions regarding conative, motive-driven PAC. We end by presenting a brief outlook on how IMPPACT might present novel insights into certain pathologies and into action expertise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 208 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 26%
Researcher 37 17%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 26 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 84 39%
Neuroscience 28 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Sports and Recreations 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 43 20%
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 31 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#3,175
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,350
of 240,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 240,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.