↓ Skip to main content

Age differences in virtual environment and real world path integration

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Age differences in virtual environment and real world path integration
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2012.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane E. Adamo, Emily M. Briceño, Joseph A. Sindone, Neil B. Alexander, Scott D. Moffat

Abstract

Accurate path integration (PI) requires the integration of visual, proprioceptive, and vestibular self-motion cues and age effects associated with alterations in processing information from these systems may contribute to declines in PI abilities. The present study investigated age-related differences in PI in conditions that varied as a function of available sources of sensory information. Twenty-two healthy, young (23.8 ± 3.0 years) and 16 older (70.1 ± 6.4 years) adults participated in distance reproduction and triangle completion tasks (TCTs) performed in a virtual environment (VE) and two "real world" conditions: guided walking and wheelchair propulsion. For walking and wheelchair propulsion conditions, participants wore a blindfold and wore noise-blocking headphones and were guided through the workspace by the experimenter. For the VE condition, participants viewed self-motion information on a computer monitor and used a joystick to navigate through the environment. For TCTs, older compared to younger individuals showed greater errors in rotation estimations performed in the wheelchair condition, and for rotation and distance estimations in the VE condition. Distance reproduction tasks (DRTs), in contrast, did not show any age effects. These findings demonstrate that age differences in PI vary as a function of the available sources of information and by the complexity of outbound pathway.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 139 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 21%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 20%
Neuroscience 20 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Computer Science 9 6%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 30 21%
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 25 September 2012.
All research outputs
#20,167,959
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,252
of 4,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,187
of 244,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 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 4,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. 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 244,102 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 22 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.