↓ Skip to main content

Mishaps, errors, and cognitive experiences: on the conceptualization of perceptual illusions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Mishaps, errors, and cognitive experiences: on the conceptualization of perceptual illusions
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Zavagno, Olga Daneyko, Rossana Actis-Grosso

Abstract

Although a visual illusion is often viewed as an amusing trick, for the vision scientist it is a question that demands an answer, which leads to even more questioning. All researchers hold their own chain of questions, the links of which depend on the very theory they adhere to. Perceptual theories are devoted to answering questions concerning sensation and perception, but in doing so they shape concepts such as reality and representation, which necessarily affect the concept of illusion. Here we consider the macroscopic aspects of such concepts in vision sciences from three classic viewpoints-Ecological, Cognitive, Gestalt approaches-as we see this a starting point to understand in which terms illusions can become a tool in the hand of the neuroscientist. In fact, illusions can be effective tools in studying the brain in reference to perception and also to cognition in a much broader sense. A theoretical debate is, however, mandatory, in particular with regards to concepts such as veridicality and representation. Whether a perceptual outcome is considered as veridical or illusory (and, consequently, whether a class of phenomena should be classified as perceptual illusions or not) depends on the meaning of such concepts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Kazakhstan 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,696,936
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,273
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,146
of 266,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#92
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 266,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.