↓ Skip to main content

Independent Effects of Eye and Hand Movements on Visual Working Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Independent Effects of Eye and Hand Movements on Visual Working Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2018.00037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina M. Hanning, Heiner Deubel

Abstract

Both eye and hand movements have been shown to selectively interfere with visual working memory. We investigated working memory in the context of simultaneous eye-hand movements to approach the question whether the eye and the hand movement systems independently interact with visual working memory. Participants memorized several locations and performed eye, hand, or simultaneous eye-hand movements during the maintenance interval. Subsequently, we tested spatial working memory at the eye or the hand motor goal, and at action-irrelevant locations. We found that for single eye and single hand movements, memory at the eye or hand target was significantly improved compared to action-irrelevant locations. Remarkably, when an eye and a hand movement were prepared in parallel, but to distinct locations, memory at both motor targets was enhanced-with no tradeoff between the two separate action goals. This suggests that eye and hand movements independently enhance visual working memory at their goal locations, resulting in an overall working memory performance that is higher than that expected when recruiting only one effector.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 31%
Neuroscience 8 22%
Engineering 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 28%
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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,543,612
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#963
of 1,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,144
of 333,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 1,346 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 333,251 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.