↓ Skip to main content

Limb apraxia and the “affordance competition hypothesis”

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Limb apraxia and the “affordance competition hypothesis”
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Rounis, Glyn Humphreys

Abstract

Limb apraxia, a disorder of higher order motor control, has long been a challenge for clinical assessment and understanding (Leiguarda and Marsden, 2000). The deficits originally described in limb apraxia (Liepmann, 1920) have been classified by the nature of the errors made by the patients leading to, namely, ideational and ideomotor apraxia. The dual stream hypothesis (Goodale and Milner, 1992) has been used to explain these categories: ideational apraxia is thought to relate to a deficit in the concept of a movement (coded in the ventral stream). Patients have difficulty using objects, sequencing actions to interact with them or pantomiming their use. Ideomotor apraxia, on the other hand, is thought to arise from problems in the accurate implementation of movements within the dorsal stream. One of the limitations on understanding apraxia is the failure by the clinical literature to draw on knowledge of the factors determining actions in the environment. Here we emphasize the role of affordance. There is much recent work indicating that our responses to stimuli are strongly influenced by the actions that the objects "afford", based on their physical properties and the intentions of the actor (e.g., Tucker and Ellis, 1998). The concept of affordance, originally suggested by Gibson (1979) has been incorporated in a recent model of interactive behavior that draws from findings in non-human primates, namely the "affordance competition hypothesis" (Cisek, 2007). This postulates that interactive behavior arises by a process of competition between possible actions elicited by the environment. In this paper we argue that "affordance competition" may play a role in apraxia. We review evidence that at least some aspects of apraxia may reflect an abnormal sensitivity to competition when multiple affordances are present (Riddoch et al., 1998) and/or a poor ability to exert cognitive control over this competition when it occurs. This framework suggests a new way of conceptualizing deficits in apraxia which invites further investigations in the field.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Professor 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 22%
Psychology 15 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Computer Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 17 24%
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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,815
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,265
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,895
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#107
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.