↓ Skip to main content

The Joint Effects of Spatial Cueing and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Visual Acuity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
The Joint Effects of Spatial Cueing and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Visual Acuity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taly Bonder, Daniel Gopher, Yaffa Yeshurun

Abstract

The present study examined the mutual influence of cortical neuroenhancement and allocation of spatial attention on perception. Specifically, it explored the effects of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on visual acuity measured with a Landolt gap task and attentional precues. The exogenous cues were used to draw attention either to the location of the target or away from it, generating significant performance benefits and costs. Anodal tDCS applied to posterior occipital area for 15 min improved performance during stimulation, reflecting heightened visual acuity. Reaction times were lower, and accuracy was higher in the tDCS group, compared to a sham control group. Additionally, in post-stimulation trials tDCS significantly interacted with the effect of precuing. Reaction times were lower in valid cued trials (benefit) and higher in invalid trials (cost) compared to neutrally cued trials, the effect which was pronounced stronger in tDCS group than in sham control group. The increase of cost and benefit effects in the tDCS group was of a similar magnitude, suggesting that anodal tDCS influenced the overall process of attention orienting. The observed interaction between the stimulation of the visual cortex and precueing indicates a magnification of attention modulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 36%
Neuroscience 7 25%
Engineering 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 18%
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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,421
of 30,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,330
of 330,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#554
of 567 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 567 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.