↓ Skip to main content

Patients with Schizophrenia Do Not Preserve Automatic Grouping When Mentally Re-Grouping Figures: Shedding Light on an Ignored Difficulty

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Patients with Schizophrenia Do Not Preserve Automatic Grouping When Mentally Re-Grouping Figures: Shedding Light on an Ignored Difficulty
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Giersch, Mitsouko van Assche, Rémi L. Capa, Corinne Marrer, Daniel Gounot

Abstract

Looking at a pair of objects is easy when automatic grouping mechanisms bind these objects together, but visual exploration can also be more flexible. It is possible to mentally "re-group" two objects that are not only separate but belong to different pairs of objects. "Re-grouping" is in conflict with automatic grouping, since it entails a separation of each item from the set it belongs to. This ability appears to be impaired in patients with schizophrenia. Here we check if this impairment is selective, which would suggest a dissociation between grouping and "re-grouping," or if it impacts on usual, automatic grouping, which would call for a better understanding of the interactions between automatic grouping and "re-grouping." Sixteen outpatients with schizophrenia and healthy controls had to identify two identical and contiguous target figures within a display of circles and squares alternating around a fixation point. Eye-tracking was used to check central fixation. The target pair could be located in the same or separate hemifields. Identical figures were grouped by a connector (grouped automatically) or not (to be re-grouped). Attention modulation of automatic grouping was tested by manipulating the proportion of connected and unconnected targets, thus prompting subjects to focalize on either connected or unconnected pairs. Both groups were sensitive to automatic grouping in most conditions, but patients were unusually slowed down for connected targets while focalizing on unconnected pairs. In addition, this unusual effect occurred only when targets were presented within the same hemifield. Patients and controls differed on this asymmetry between within- and across-hemifield presentation, suggesting that patients with schizophrenia do not re-group figures in the same way as controls do. We discuss possible implications on how "re-grouping" ties in with ongoing, automatic perception in healthy volunteers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 47%
Philosophy 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
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 04 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,963
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,230
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#289
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.