↓ Skip to main content

A Picture You Can Handle: Infants Treat Touch-Screen Images More Like Photographs than Objects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
A Picture You Can Handle: Infants Treat Touch-Screen Images More Like Photographs than Objects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine J Ziemer, Makenna Snyder

Abstract

Infants actively explore their world in order to determine the different ways in which they can interact with various objects. Although research on infant perception has focused on how infants understand the differences between 2- and 3-dimensional objects, today's infants increasingly encounter 2D images with interactive qualities on smart-phone screens, tablets, and laptops. The purpose of this experiment was to examine the types of manual behaviors infants direct toward tablet images and to compare these actions to those evoked by 2D photographs or 3D when tactile feedback is controlled. Infants between the ages of 7-10 months sat on their parent's lap in front of a table with a built-in well covered by a clear, plastic sheet while the three types of displays (photographs, objects, and screen images on a tablet) were presented for 30 s each. Infants saw three examples of each type of display presented in the built-in well so that tactile feedback information from the different displays was controlled. Coders noted the proportion of trials in which infants grasped, scratched, rubbed, or patted the display. Results indicate that infants direct significantly more grasps, scratches, and rubs toward 3D objects than 2D photographs. Infants also direct more grasps to objects compared to screen images. Our data suggests that infants are treating screen images more similarly to 2D photographs than 3D objects.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 47%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
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 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,812,370
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,577
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,842
of 343,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#310
of 394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 343,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.