↓ Skip to main content

To Lead and To Lag – Forward and Backward Recalibration of Perceived Visuo-Motor Simultaneity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
To Lead and To Lag – Forward and Backward Recalibration of Perceived Visuo-Motor Simultaneity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00599
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Rohde, Marc O. Ernst

Abstract

Studies on human recalibration of perceived visuo-motor simultaneity so far have been limited to the study of recalibration to movement-lead temporal discrepancies (visual lags). We studied adaptation to both vision-lead and movement-lead discrepancies, to test for differences between these conditions, as a leading visual stimulus violates the underlying cause-effect structure. To this end, we manipulated the temporal relationship between a motor action (button press) and a visual event (flashed disk) in a training phase. Participants were tested in a temporal order judgment task and perceived simultaneity (PSS) was compared before and after recalibration. A PHANToM©force-feedback device that tracks the finger position in real time was used to display a virtual button. We predicted the timing of full compression of the button from early movement onset in order to time visual stimuli even before the movement event of the full button press. The results show that recalibration of perceived visuo-motor simultaneity is evident in both directions and does not differ in magnitude between the conditions. The strength of recalibration decreases with perceptual accuracy, suggesting the possibility that some participants recalibrate less because they detect the discrepancy. We conclude that the mechanisms of temporal recalibration work in both directions and that there is no evidence that they are asymmetrical around the point of actual simultaneity, despite the underlying asymmetry in the cause-effect relation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Brazil 2 3%
Turkey 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 63 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 51%
Neuroscience 12 17%
Computer Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 8 11%
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 22 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,178,948
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,797
of 29,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,696
of 280,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 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 29,432 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 280,672 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 969 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.