↓ Skip to main content

Rate of recalibration to changing affordances for squeezing through doorways reveals the role of feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Rate of recalibration to changing affordances for squeezing through doorways reveals the role of feedback
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5252-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Franchak, Frank A. Somoano

Abstract

Recalibration of affordance perception in response to changing motor abilities can only occur if observers detect appropriate perceptual information. Recent work suggests that although many affordances can be recalibrated without practicing the specific action to gather outcome feedback-information about whether the attempted action succeeded or failed-calibration of other affordances might depend on outcome feedback (Franchak, Attent Percept Psychophys 79:1816-1829, 2017). However, past work could not rule out the possibility that practicing the action produced perceptual-motor feedback besides outcome feedback that facilitated recalibration. The results of two experiments support the hypothesis that recalibration in a doorway squeezing task depends on outcome feedback as opposed to perceptual-motor feedback. After putting on a backpack that changed participants' doorway squeezing ability, affordance judgments were uncalibrated and remained so even after making repeated judgments. However, after practicing the action, which produced outcome feedback, judgments rapidly calibrated. Moreover, the order of feedback information directly impacted participants' judgments: Participants did not recalibrate if they received only success experience or only failure experience. Recalibration only occurred after participants received both types of feedback experiences, suggesting that outcome feedback is necessary for recalibration in the doorway squeezing task. More generally, the results of the current study support a key tenet of ecological psychology-that affordance perception depends on action-specific information about body-environment relations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 39%
Sports and Recreations 4 17%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,938,059
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#776
of 3,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,060
of 329,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 329,678 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 68% of its contemporaries.