↓ Skip to main content

Multimodal Integration of Spatial Information: The Influence of Object-Related Factors and Self-Reported Strategies

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Multimodal Integration of Spatial Information: The Influence of Object-Related Factors and Self-Reported Strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harun Karimpur, Kai Hamburger

Abstract

Spatial representations are a result of multisensory information integration. More recent findings suggest that the multisensory information processing of a scene can be facilitated when paired with a semantically congruent auditory signal. This congruency effect was taken as evidence that audio-visual integration occurs for complex scenes. As navigation in our environment consists of a seamless integration of complex sceneries, a fundamental question arises: how is human landmark-based wayfinding affected by multimodality? In order to address this question, two experiments were conducted in a virtual environment. The first experiment compared wayfinding and landmark recognition performance in unimodal visual and acoustic landmarks. The second experiment focused on the congruency of multimodal landmark combinations and additionally assessed subject's self-reported strategies (i.e., whether they focused on direction sequences or landmarks). We demonstrate (1) the equality of acoustic and visual landmarks and (2) the congruency effect for the recognition of landmarks. Additionally, the results point out that self-reported strategies play a role and are an under-investigated topic in human landmark-based wayfinding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 40%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Design 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 30%
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 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,475,157
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,316
of 30,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,476
of 320,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#357
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 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 30,015 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 320,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.