↓ Skip to main content

Peri-saccadic compression to two locations in a two-target choice saccade task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Peri-saccadic compression to two locations in a two-target choice saccade task
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Lappe, Fred H. Hamker

Abstract

When visual stimuli are presented at the onset of a saccadic eye movement they are seen compressed onto the target location of the saccade. This peri-saccadic compression is believed to result from internal feedback pathways between oculomotor and visual areas of the brain. This feedback enhances vision around the saccade target at the expense of localization ability in other regions of the visual field. Although saccades can be targeted at only one object at a time, often multiple potential targets are available in a visual scene, and the oculomotor system has to choose which target to look at. If two targets are available, preparatory activity builds-up at both target locations in oculomotor maps. Here we show that, in this situation, two foci of compression develop, independent of which of the two targets is eventually chosen for the saccade. Our results suggest that theories that use oculomotor feedback as efference copy signals for upcoming eye movements should take the possibility into account that multiple feedback signals from potential targets may occur in parallel before the execution of a saccade.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Student > Master 5 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 13%
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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,773,420
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#1,054
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,315
of 277,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 277,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.