↓ Skip to main content

Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Kassuba, Corinna Klinge, Cordula Hölig, Brigitte Röder, Hartwig R. Siebner

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have provided ample evidence for the involvement of the lateral occipital cortex (LO), fusiform gyrus (FG), and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in visuo-haptic object integration. Here we applied 30 min of sham (non-effective) or real offline 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to perturb neural processing in left LO immediately before subjects performed a visuo-haptic delayed-match-to-sample task during fMRI. In this task, subjects had to match sample (S1) and target (S2) objects presented sequentially within or across vision and/or haptics in both directions (visual-haptic or haptic-visual) and decide whether or not S1 and S2 were the same objects. Real rTMS transiently decreased activity at the site of stimulation and remote regions such as the right LO and bilateral FG during haptic S1 processing. Without affecting behavior, the same stimulation gave rise to relative increases in activation during S2 processing in the right LO, left FG, bilateral IPS, and other regions previously associated with object recognition. Critically, the modality of S2 determined which regions were recruited after rTMS. Relative to sham rTMS, real rTMS induced increased activations during crossmodal congruent matching in the left FG for haptic S2 and the temporal pole for visual S2. In addition, we found stronger activations for incongruent than congruent matching in the right anterior parahippocampus and middle frontal gyrus for crossmodal matching of haptic S2 and in the left FG and bilateral IPS for unimodal matching of visual S2, only after real but not sham rTMS. The results imply that a focal perturbation of the left LO triggers modality-specific interactions between the stimulated left LO and other key regions of object processing possibly to maintain unimpaired object recognition. This suggests that visual and haptic processing engage partially distinct brain networks during visuo-haptic object matching.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 22%
Researcher 7 13%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 27%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 22%
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 28 April 2014.
All research outputs
#16,576,329
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,829
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,461
of 231,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#158
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 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 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 231,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.