↓ Skip to main content

Fronto-Parietal Brain Responses to Visuotactile Congruence in an Anatomical Reference Frame

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Fronto-Parietal Brain Responses to Visuotactile Congruence in an Anatomical Reference Frame
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jakub Limanowski, Felix Blankenburg

Abstract

Spatially and temporally congruent visuotactile stimulation of a fake hand together with one's real hand may result in an illusory self-attribution of the fake hand. Although this illusion relies on a representation of the two touched body parts in external space, there is tentative evidence that, for the illusion to occur, the seen and felt touches also need to be congruent in an anatomical reference frame. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and a somatotopical, virtual reality-based setup to isolate the neuronal basis of such a comparison. Participants' index or little finger was synchronously touched with the index or little finger of a virtual hand, under congruent or incongruent orientations of the real and virtual hands. The left ventral premotor cortex responded significantly more strongly to visuotactile co-stimulation of the same versus different fingers of the virtual and real hand. Conversely, the left anterior intraparietal sulcus responded significantly more strongly to co-stimulation of different versus same fingers. Both responses were independent of hand orientation congruence and of spatial congruence of the visuotactile stimuli. Our results suggest that fronto-parietal areas previously associated with multisensory processing within peripersonal space and with tactile remapping evaluate the congruence of visuotactile stimulation on the body according to an anatomical reference frame.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 25%
Neuroscience 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#13,580,944
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,080
of 7,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,304
of 332,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#99
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,194 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 332,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.