↓ Skip to main content

Saccades Influence the Visibility of Targets in Rapid Stimulus Sequences: The Roles of Mislocalization, Retinal Distance and Remapping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Saccades Influence the Visibility of Targets in Rapid Stimulus Sequences: The Roles of Mislocalization, Retinal Distance and Remapping
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessio Fracasso, David Melcher

Abstract

Briefly presented targets around the time of a saccade are mislocalized towards the saccadic landing point. This has been taken as evidence for a remapping mechanism that accompanies each eye movement, helping maintain visual stability across large retinal shifts. Previous studies have shown that spatial mislocalization is greatly diminished when trains of brief stimuli are presented at a high frequency rate, which might help to explain why mislocalization is rarely perceived in everyday viewing. Studies in the laboratory have shown that mislocalization can reduce metacontrast masking by causing target stimuli in a masking sequence to be perceived as shifted in space towards the saccadic target and thus more easily discriminated. We investigated the influence of saccades on target discrimination when target and masks were presented in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), as well as with forward masking and with backward masking. In a series of experiments, we found that performance was influenced by the retinal displacement caused by the saccade itself but that an additional component of un-masking occurred even when the retinal location of target and mask was matched. These results speak in favor of a remapping mechanism that begins before the eyes start moving and continues well beyond saccadic termination.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 28%
Neuroscience 3 17%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
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 23 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,856,117
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#890
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,501
of 351,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 351,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.