↓ Skip to main content

Saccadic Momentum and Facilitation of Return Saccades Contribute to an Optimal Foraging Strategy

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Saccadic Momentum and Facilitation of Return Saccades Contribute to an Optimal Foraging Strategy
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002871
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niklas Wilming, Simon Harst, Nico Schmidt, Peter König

Abstract

The interest in saccadic IOR is funneled by the hypothesis that it serves a clear functional purpose in the selection of fixation points: the facilitation of foraging. In this study, we arrive at a different interpretation of saccadic IOR. First, we find that return saccades are performed much more often than expected from the statistical properties of saccades and saccade pairs. Second, we find that fixation durations before a saccade are modulated by the relative angle of the saccade, but return saccades show no sign of an additional temporal inhibition. Thus, we do not find temporal saccadic inhibition of return. Interestingly, we find that return locations are more salient, according to empirically measured saliency (locations that are fixated by many observers) as well as stimulus dependent saliency (defined by image features), than regular fixation locations. These results and the finding that return saccades increase the match of individual trajectories with a grand total priority map evidences the return saccades being part of a fixation selection strategy that trades off exploration and exploitation.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 9%
Hungary 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 56 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 12 18%
Professor 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 19%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Computer Science 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%
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 18 April 2013.
All research outputs
#15,755,393
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,756
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,710
of 292,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#81
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 292,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.