↓ Skip to main content

Children’s looking preference for biological motion may be related to an affinity for mathematical chaos

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Children’s looking preference for biological motion may be related to an affinity for mathematical chaos
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua L. Haworth, Anastasia Kyvelidou, Wayne Fisher, Nicholas Stergiou

Abstract

Recognition of biological motion is pervasive in early child development. Further, viewing the movement behavior of others is a primary component of a child's acquisition of complex, robust movement repertoires, through imitation and real-time coordinated action. We theorize that inherent to biological movements are particular qualities of mathematical chaos and complexity. We further posit that this character affords the rich and complex inter-dynamics throughout early motor development. Specifically, we explored whether children's preference for biological motion may be related to an affinity for mathematical chaos. Cross recurrence quantification analysis (cRQA) was used to investigate the coordination of gaze and posture with various temporal structures (periodic, chaotic, and aperiodic) of the motion of an oscillating visual stimulus. Children appear to competently perceive and respond to chaotic motion, both in rate (cRQA-percent determinism) and duration (cRQA-maxline) of coordination. We interpret this to indicate that children not only recognize chaotic motion structures, but also have a preference for coordination with them. Further, stratification of our sample (by age) uncovers the suggestion that this preference may become refined with age.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 26%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,309,919
of 25,452,734 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,696
of 34,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,275
of 292,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#246
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,452,734 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 292,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.