↓ Skip to main content

Brain networks supporting perceptual grouping and contour selection

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Brain networks supporting perceptual grouping and contour selection
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregor Volberg, Mark W. Greenlee

Abstract

The human visual system groups local elements into global objects seemingly without effort. Using a contour integration task and EEG source level analyses, we tested the hypothesis that perceptual grouping requires a top-down selection, rather than a passive pooling, of neural information that codes local elements in the visual image. The participants were presented visual displays with or without a hidden contour. Two tasks were performed: a central luminance-change detection task and a peripheral contour detection task. Only in the contour-detection task could we find differential brain activity between contour and non-contour conditions, within a distributed brain network including parietal, lateral occipital and primary visual areas. Contour processing was associated with an inflow of information from lateral occipital into primary visual regions, as revealed from the slope of phase differences between source level oscillations within these areas. The findings suggest that contour integration results from a selection of neural information from lower visual areas, and that this selection is driven by the lateral occipital cortex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
China 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 42%
Neuroscience 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 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 07 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,008
of 29,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,661
of 226,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#205
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,641 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 226,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.