↓ Skip to main content

Route repetition and route retracing: effects of cognitive aging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Route repetition and route retracing: effects of cognitive aging
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2012.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan M. Wiener, Hana Kmecova, Olivier de Condappa

Abstract

Retracing a recently traveled route is a frequent navigation task when learning novel routes or exploring unfamiliar environments. In the present study we utilized virtual environments technology to investigate age-related differences in repeating and retracing a learned route. In the training phase of the experiment participants were guided along a route consisting of multiple intersections each featuring one unique landmark. In the subsequent test phase, they were guided along short sections of the route and asked to indicate overall travel direction (repetition or retracing), the direction required to continue along the route, and the next landmark they would encounter. Results demonstrate age-related deficits in all three tasks. More specifically, in contrast to younger participants, the older participants had greater problems during route retracing than during route repetition. While route repetition can be solved with egocentric response or route strategies, successfully retracing a route requires allocentric processing. The age-related deficits in route retracing are discussed in the context of impaired allocentric processing and shift from allocentric to egocentric navigation strategies as a consequence of age-related hippocampal degeneration.

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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 25%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 34%
Neuroscience 18 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 6 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 23 20%
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 08 June 2012.
All research outputs
#14,605,487
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,288
of 4,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,027
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.