↓ Skip to main content

Pre-Saccadic Shifts of Visual Attention

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
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
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Pre-Saccadic Shifts of Visual Attention
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045670
Pubmed ID
Authors

William J. Harrison, Jason B. Mattingley, Roger W. Remington

Abstract

The locations of visual objects to which we attend are initially mapped in a retinotopic frame of reference. Because each saccade results in a shift of images on the retina, however, the retinotopic mapping of spatial attention must be updated around the time of each eye movement. Mathôt and Theeuwes [1] recently demonstrated that a visual cue draws attention not only to the cue's current retinotopic location, but also to a location shifted in the direction of the saccade, the "future-field". Here we asked whether retinotopic and future-field locations have special status, or whether cue-related attention benefits exist between these locations. We measured responses to targets that appeared either at the retinotopic or future-field location of a brief, non-predictive visual cue, or at various intermediate locations between them. Attentional cues facilitated performance at both the retinotopic and future-field locations for cued relative to uncued targets, as expected. Critically, this cueing effect also occurred at intermediate locations. Our results, and those reported previously [1], imply a systematic bias of attention in the direction of the saccade, independent of any predictive remapping of attention that compensates for retinal displacements of objects across saccades [2].

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 26%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 13 17%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 44%
Neuroscience 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Computer Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 17%
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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#13,367,517
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,423
of 193,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,597
of 170,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,139
of 4,259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 170,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.