↓ Skip to main content

Causal Context Presented in Subsequent Event Modifies the Perceived Timing of Cause and Effect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Causal Context Presented in Subsequent Event Modifies the Perceived Timing of Cause and Effect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00314
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroyuki Umemura

Abstract

The effect of perceived causality on other aspects of perception, such as temporal or spatial perception, has interested many researchers. Previous studies have shown that the perceived timing of two events is modulated when the events are intentionally produced or the causal link between the two events was known in advance. However, little research has directly supported the idea that causality alone can modulate the perceived timing of two events without having knowledge about causal links in advance. In this study, I used novel causal displays in which various types of causal contexts could be presented in subsequent events (movement or color change of objects). In these displays, the preceding events were the same (ball falling from above), so observers could not predict which subsequent events displayed. The results showed that the perceived causal context modulated the temporal relationship of two serial events so as to be consistent with the causal order implied by the subsequent event; ball hit the floor, then objects moved. These modulations were smaller when the movements implied preceding effect of the falling ball (e.g., wind pressure). These results are well-suited to the Bayesian framework in which the perceived timing of events is reconstructed through the observers' prior experiences, and suggest that multiple prior experiences would competitively contribute to the estimation of the timing of events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 8%
Design 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
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 11 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,471,180
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,066
of 30,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,643
of 308,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#331
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,113 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 55% 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 308,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.