↓ Skip to main content

How You Move Is What I See: Planning an Action Biases a Partner’s Visual Search

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
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
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
How You Move Is What I See: Planning an Action Biases a Partner’s Visual Search
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominik Dötsch, Cordula Vesper, Anna Schubö

Abstract

Activating action representations can modulate perceptual processing of action-relevant dimensions, indicative of a common-coding of perception and action. When two or more agents work together in joint action, individual agents often need to consider not only their own actions and their effects on the world, but also predict the actions of a co-acting partner. If in these situations the action of a partner is represented in a functionally equivalent way to the agent's own actions, one may also expect interaction effects between action and perception across jointly acting individuals. The present study investigated whether the action of a co-acting partner may modulate an agent's perception. The "performer" prepared a grasping or pointing movement toward a physical target while the "searcher" performed a visual search task. The performer's planned action impaired the searcher's perceptual performance when the search target dimension was relevant to the performer's movement execution. These results demonstrate an action-induced modulation of perceptual processes across participants and indicate that agents represent their partner's action by employing the same perceptual system they use to represent an own action. We suggest that task representations in joint action operate along multiple levels of a cross-brain predictive coding system, which provides agents with information about a partner's actions when they coordinate to reach a common goal.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 27%
Professor 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 32%
Neuroscience 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Sports and Recreations 2 9%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,028,602
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,239
of 30,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,638
of 419,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#302
of 464 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 419,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 464 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.