↓ Skip to main content

Constraining movement alters the recruitment of motor processes in mental rotation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Constraining movement alters the recruitment of motor processes in mental rotation
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00221-012-3324-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moreau

Abstract

Does mental rotation depend on the readiness to act? Recent evidence indicates that the involvement of motor processes in mental rotation is experience-dependent, suggesting that different levels of expertise in sensorimotor interactions lead to different strategies to solve mental rotation problems. Specifically, experts in motor activities perceive spatial material as objects that can be acted upon, triggering covert simulation of rotations. Because action simulation depends on the readiness to act, movement restriction should therefore disrupt mental rotation performance in individuals favoring motor processes. In this experiment, wrestlers and non-athletes judged whether pairs of three-dimensional stimuli were identical or different, with their hands either constrained or unconstrained. Wrestlers showed higher performance than controls in the rotation of geometric stimuli, but this difference disappeared when their hands were constrained. However, movement restriction had similar consequences for both groups in the rotation of hands. These findings suggest that expert's advantage in mental rotation of abstract objects is based on the readiness to act, even when physical manipulation is impossible.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 66 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 25%
Student > Master 16 23%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 February 2023.
All research outputs
#7,699,921
of 23,420,064 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#921
of 3,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,890
of 183,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#9
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,420,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,273 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 183,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.