↓ Skip to main content

Improving Perception to Make Distant Connections Closer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Improving Perception to Make Distant Connections Closer
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L. Goldstone, David Landy, Lionel C. Brunel

Abstract

One of the challenges for perceptually grounded accounts of high-level cognition is to explain how people make connections and draw inferences between situations that superficially have little in common. Evidence suggests that people draw these connections even without having explicit, verbalizable knowledge of their bases. Instead, the connections are based on sub-symbolic representations that are grounded in perception, action, and space. One reason why people are able to spontaneously see relations between situations that initially appear to be unrelated is that their eventual perceptions are not restricted to initial appearances. Training and strategic deployment allow our perceptual processes to deliver outputs that would have otherwise required abstract or formal reasoning. Even without people having any privileged access to the internal operations of perceptual modules, these modules can be systematically altered so as to better serve our high-level reasoning needs. Moreover, perceptually based processes can be altered in a number of ways to closely approximate formally sanctioned computations. To be concrete about mechanisms of perceptual change, we present 21 illustrations of ways in which we alter, adjust, and augment our perceptual systems with the intention of having them better satisfy our needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 8%
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 8 16%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 45%
Philosophy 6 12%
Computer Science 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 18%
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 27 December 2011.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,848
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#217
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.