↓ Skip to main content

The geometry of expertise

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
The geometry of expertise
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

María J. Leone, Diego Fernandez Slezak, Guillermo A. Cecchi, Mariano Sigman

Abstract

Theories of expertise based on the acquisition of chunk and templates suggest a differential geometric organization of perception between experts and novices. It is implied that expert representation is less anchored by spatial (Euclidean) proximity and may instead be dictated by the intrinsic relation in the structure and grammar of the specific domain of expertise. Here we set out to examine this hypothesis. We used the domain of chess which has been widely used as a tool to study human expertise. We reasoned that the movement of an opponent piece to a specific square constitutes an external cue and the reaction of the player to this "perturbation" should reveal his internal representation of proximity. We hypothesized that novice players will tend to respond by moving a piece in closer squares than experts. Similarly, but now in terms of object representations, we hypothesized weak players will more likely focus on a specific piece and hence produce sequence of actions repeating movements of the same piece. We capitalized on a large corpus of data obtained from internet chess servers. Results showed that, relative to experts, weaker players tend to (1) produce consecutive moves in proximal board locations, (2) move more often the same piece and (3) reduce the number of remaining pieces more rapidly, most likely to decrease cognitive load and mental effort. These three principles might reflect the effect of expertise on human actions in complex setups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Romania 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Computer Science 4 9%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,953,943
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,848
of 30,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,621
of 307,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#39
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 307,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.