↓ Skip to main content

The brain uses efference copy information to optimise spatial memory

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
The brain uses efference copy information to optimise spatial memory
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00221-012-3298-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. C. Gonzalez, M. R. Burke

Abstract

Does a motor response to a target improve the subsequent recall of the target position or can we simply use peripheral position information to guide an accurate response? We suggest that a motor plan of the hand can be enhanced with actual motor and efference copy feedback (GoGo trials), which is absent in the passive observation of a stimulus (NoGo trials). To investigate this effect during eye and hand coordination movements, we presented stimuli in two formats (memory guided or visually guided) under three modality conditions (eyes only, hands only (with eyes fixated), or eyes and hand together). We found that during coordinated movements, both the eye and hand response times were facilitated when efference feedback of the movement was provided. Furthermore, both eye and hand movements to remembered locations were significantly more accurate in the GoGo than in the NoGo trial types. These results reveal that an efference copy of a motor plan enhances memory for a location that is not only observed in eye movements, but also translated downstream into a hand movement. These results have significant implications on how we plan, code and guide behavioural responses, and how we can optimise accuracy and timing to a given target.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 26%
Neuroscience 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Engineering 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 November 2012.
All research outputs
#14,154,868
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,759
of 3,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,596
of 175,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#14
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,218 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 175,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 64% of its contemporaries.