↓ Skip to main content

Peripheral Visual Cues: Their Fate in Processing and Effects on Attention and Temporal-Order Perception

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Peripheral Visual Cues: Their Fate in Processing and Effects on Attention and Temporal-Order Perception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Tünnermann, Ingrid Scharlau

Abstract

Peripheral visual cues lead to large shifts in psychometric distributions of temporal-order judgments. In one view, such shifts are attributed to attention speeding up processing of the cued stimulus, so-called prior entry. However, sometimes these shifts are so large that it is unlikely that they are caused by attention alone. Here we tested the prevalent alternative explanation that the cue is sometimes confused with the target on a perceptual level, bolstering the shift of the psychometric function. We applied a novel model of cued temporal-order judgments, derived from Bundesen's Theory of Visual Attention. We found that cue-target confusions indeed contribute to shifting psychometric functions. However, cue-induced changes in the processing rates of the target stimuli play an important role, too. At smaller cueing intervals, the cue increased the processing speed of the target. At larger intervals, inhibition of return was predominant. Earlier studies of cued TOJs were insensitive to these effects because in psychometric distributions they are concealed by the conjoint effects of cue-target confusions and processing rate changes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 30%
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Lecturer 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 45%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 15%
Computer Science 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
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 24 March 2024.
All research outputs
#7,678,279
of 23,367,368 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,235
of 31,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,678
of 321,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#230
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,367,368 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 321,467 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 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.