↓ Skip to main content

Self-motivated visual scanning predicts flexible navigation in a virtual environment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Self-motivated visual scanning predicts flexible navigation in a virtual environment
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth J. Ploran, Jacob Bevitt, Jaris Oshiro, Raja Parasuraman, James C. Thompson

Abstract

The ability to navigate flexibly (e.g., reorienting oneself based on distal landmarks to reach a learned target from a new position) may rely on visual scanning during both initial experiences with the environment and subsequent test trials. Reliance on visual scanning during navigation harkens back to the concept of vicarious trial and error, a description of the side-to-side head movements made by rats as they explore previously traversed sections of a maze in an attempt to find a reward. In the current study, we examined if visual scanning predicted the extent to which participants would navigate to a learned location in a virtual environment defined by its position relative to distal landmarks. Our results demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the amount of visual scanning and participant accuracy in identifying the trained target location from a new starting position as long as the landmarks within the environment remain consistent with the period of original learning. Our findings indicate that active visual scanning of the environment is a deliberative attentional strategy that supports the formation of spatial representations for flexible navigation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 36%
Engineering 5 18%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 18%
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 02 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,359,382
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,056
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,330
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#105
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.