↓ Skip to main content

Conceptual unifying constraints override sensorimotor interference during anticipatory control of bimanual actions

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
37 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.
Article details
Title
Conceptual unifying constraints override sensorimotor interference during anticipatory control of bimanual actions
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00221-010-2365-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. Franz, Robert McCormick

Abstract

Traditional approaches to research on bimanual coordination focus on sensorimotor interference, motor programming, and effects of perception and feedback guidance; surprisingly, little is known about high-level conceptual constraints that might unify separate movements into coordinated actions. We investigated two possible forms of high-level unifying representations on anticipatory control (i.e., reaction time: RT) in two-limb (bimanual) movements. Specifically, we adapted a paradigmatic bimanual task involving reaching to targets by adding two novel manipulations. One involved a visual-perceptual manipulation in which target-objects were presented either separately (i.e., two circles) or as a unified object (i.e., two circles connected by a bar). The other involved variants on language representation to elicit separate action plans (i.e., separate instructional commands joined by 'and') or unified action plans (i.e., a single verb applying to both hands). Typical forms of sensorimotor interference were virtually abolished when these unifying constraints were available. These findings provide strong support for the theoretical account that unifying conceptual representations are primary forms of bimanual constraint. Findings further suggest that the organization and content of the language used to form action representations can strongly influence anticipatory planning of bimanual actions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 30%
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Engineering 6 16%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 August 2010.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,004
of 3,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,900
of 93,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#18
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 93,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.