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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Stronger Misdirection in Curved than in Straight Motion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00133 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Otero-Millan, Stephen L. Macknik, Apollo Robbins, Michael McCamy, Susana Martinez-Conde |
| Abstract |
Illusions developed by magicians are a rich and largely untapped source of insight into perception and cognition. Here we show that curved motion, as employed by the magician in a classic sleight of hand trick, generates stronger misdirection than rectilinear motion, and that this difference can be explained by the differential engagement of the smooth pursuit and the saccadic oculomotor systems. This research exemplifies how the magician's intuitive understanding of the spectator's mindset can surpass that of the cognitive scientist in specific instances, and that observation-based behavioral insights developed by magicians are worthy of quantitative investigation in the neuroscience laboratory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Hungary | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 82% |
| Scientists | 4 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 27% |
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 46 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 28 October 2020.
All research outputs
#632,242
of 25,541,640 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#276
of 7,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,605
of 191,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,541,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 191,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.