↓ Skip to main content

Differential mechanisms of action understanding in left and right handed subjects: the role of perspective and handedness

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Differential mechanisms of action understanding in left and right handed subjects: the role of perspective and handedness
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00957
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel L. Kelly, Lewis A. Wheaton

Abstract

The ability to comprehend outcomes of skilled action is important for understanding the world around us. Prior studies have evaluated the perspective an action is performed in, but few have evaluated how handedness of the actor and the observer interact with action perspective. Understanding handedness affords the opportunity to identify the role of mirroring and matched limb action encoding, which may display unique strategies of action understanding. Right and left-handed subjects were presented with images of tools from egocentric or allocentric perspectives performing movements by either a left or right hand. Subjects had to judge the outcome of the task, and accuracy and latency were evaluated. Our hypothesis was that both left and right-handed subjects would predict action best from an egocentric perspective. In allocentric perspectives, identification of action outcomes would occur best in the mirror-matched dominant limb for all subjects. Results showed there was a significant effect on accuracy and latency with respect to perspective for both right and left-handed subjects. The highest accuracies and fastest latencies were found in the egocentric perspective. Handedness of subject also showed an effect on accuracy, where right-handed subjects were significantly more accurate in the task than left-handed subjects. An interaction effect revealed that left-handed subjects were less accurate at judging images from an allocentric viewpoint compared to all other conditions. These findings suggest that action outcomes are best facilitated in an internal perspective, regardless of the hand being used. The decreased accuracy for left-handed subjects on allocentric images could be due to asymmetrical lateralization of encoding action and motoric dominance, which may interfere with translating allocentric limb action outcomes. Further neurophysiological studies will help us understand the specific processes of how left and right-handed subjects may encode actions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
India 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 32%
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 1 4%
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 24 January 2014.
All research outputs
#14,768,891
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,016
of 29,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,372
of 280,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#649
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 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 29,580 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 280,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.