↓ Skip to main content

Conducting perception research over the internet: a tutorial review

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Conducting perception research over the internet: a tutorial review
Published in
PeerJ, July 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andy T. Woods, Carlos Velasco, Carmel A. Levitan, Xiaoang Wan, Charles Spence

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the recent literature on the use of internet-based testing to address important questions in perception research. Our goal is to provide a starting point for the perception researcher who is keen on assessing this tool for their own research goals. Internet-based testing has several advantages over in-lab research, including the ability to reach a relatively broad set of participants and to quickly and inexpensively collect large amounts of empirical data, via services such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk or Prolific Academic. In many cases, the quality of online data appears to match that collected in lab research. Generally-speaking, online participants tend to be more representative of the population at large than those recruited for lab based research. There are, though, some important caveats, when it comes to collecting data online. It is obviously much more difficult to control the exact parameters of stimulus presentation (such as display characteristics) with online research. There are also some thorny ethical elements that need to be considered by experimenters. Strengths and weaknesses of the online approach, relative to others, are highlighted, and recommendations made for those researchers who might be thinking about conducting their own studies using this increasingly-popular approach to research in the psychological sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 274 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 24%
Student > Master 35 12%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 9%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 50 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 97 34%
Neuroscience 22 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 7%
Computer Science 14 5%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Other 48 17%
Unknown 74 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 24 March 2020.
All research outputs
#902,817
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#909
of 15,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,696
of 275,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#19
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 275,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.