↓ Skip to main content

Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik D. Reichle, Eyal M. Reingold

Abstract

Several current computational models of eye-movement control in reading posit a tight link between the eye and mind, with lexical processing directly triggering most "decisions" about when to start programming a saccade to move the eyes from one word to the next. One potential problem with this theoretical assumption, however, is that it may violate neurophysiological constraints imposed by the time required to encode visual information, complete some amount of lexical processing, and then program a saccade. In this article, we review what has been learned about these timing constraints from studies using ERP and MEG. On the basis of this review, it would appear that the temporal constraints are too severe to permit direct lexical control of eye movements without a significant amount of parafoveal processing (i.e., pre-processing of word n+1 from word n). This conclusion underscores the degree to which the perceptual, cognitive, and motor processes involved in reading must be highly coordinated to support skilled reading, a par excellence example of a task requiring visual-cognitive expertise.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Professor 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 37%
Linguistics 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,259,595
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,621
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,181
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#376
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 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 55% of its contemporaries.