↓ Skip to main content

Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, January 2013
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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.
Title
Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00221-012-3398-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marlene Meyer, Robrecht P. R. D. van der Wel, Sabine Hunnius

Abstract

Many actions involve multiple action steps, which raises the question how far ahead people plan when they perform such actions. Here, we examined higher-order planning for action sequences and whether people planned similarly or differently when acting individually or together with an action partner. For individual performances, participants picked up an object with one hand and passed it to their other hand before placing it onto a target location. For joint performances, they picked up the object and handed it to their action partner, who placed it onto the target location. Each object could be grasped at only two possible grasping positions, implying that the first selected grasp on the object determined the postures for the rest of the action sequence. By varying the height of the target shelf, we tested whether people planned ahead and modulated their grasp choices to avoid uncomfortable end postures. Our results indicated that participants engaged in higher-order planning, but needed task experience before demonstrating such planning during both individual and joint performances. The rate of learning was similar in the two conditions, and participants transferred experience from individual to joint performance. Our results indicate similarity in mechanisms underlying individual and joint action sequence planning.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Sweden 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 57 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 46%
Neuroscience 8 13%
Engineering 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 01 July 2013.
All research outputs
#953,026
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#59
of 3,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,971
of 282,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 282,214 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 38 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 97% of its contemporaries.