↓ Skip to main content

Speeded Reaching Movements around Invisible Obstacles

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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.
Article details
Title
Speeded Reaching Movements around Invisible Obstacles
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002676
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We analyze the problem of obstacle avoidance from a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspective using an experimental task in which reaches around a virtual obstacle were made toward targets on an upright monitor. Subjects received monetary rewards for touching the target and incurred losses for accidentally touching the intervening obstacle. The locations of target-obstacle pairs within the workspace were varied from trial to trial. We compared human performance to that of a Bayesian ideal movement planner (who chooses motor strategies maximizing expected gain) using the Dominance Test employed in Hudson et al. (2007). The ideal movement planner suffers from the same sources of noise as the human, but selects movement plans that maximize expected gain in the presence of that noise. We find good agreement between the predictions of the model and actual performance in most but not all experimental conditions.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Netherlands 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 37 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Professor 4 9%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Engineering 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 19%
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 21 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,855,686
of 27,353,931 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,732
of 9,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,798
of 194,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#84
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,353,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 194,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.