↓ Skip to main content

Heading recovery from optic flow: comparing performance of humans and computational models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Heading recovery from optic flow: comparing performance of humans and computational models
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Foulkes, Simon K. Rushton, Paul A. Warren

Abstract

Human observers can perceive their direction of heading with a precision of about a degree. Several computational models of the processes underpinning the perception of heading have been proposed. In the present study we set out to assess which of four candidate models best captured human performance; the four models we selected reflected key differences in terms of approach and methods to modelling optic flow processing to recover movement parameters. We first generated a performance profile for human observers by measuring how performance changed as we systematically manipulated both the quantity (number of dots in the stimulus per frame) and quality (amount of 2D directional noise) of the flow field information. We then generated comparable performance profiles for the four candidate models. Models varied markedly in terms of both their performance and similarity to human data. To formally assess the match between the models and human performance we regressed the output of each of the four models against human performance data. We were able to rule out two models that produced very different performance profiles to human observers. The remaining two shared some similarities with human performance profiles in terms of the magnitude and pattern of thresholds. However none of the models tested could capture all aspect of the human data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 34 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Professor 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 49%
Engineering 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 5 14%
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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,754,618
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,031
of 3,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,310
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#85
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 280,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.