↓ Skip to main content

Contextual Cueing Effect in Spatial Layout Defined by Binocular Disparity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Contextual Cueing Effect in Spatial Layout Defined by Binocular Disparity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guang Zhao, Qian Zhuang, Jie Ma, Shen Tu, Qiang Liu, Hong-jin Sun

Abstract

Repeated visual context induces higher search efficiency, revealing a contextual cueing effect, which depends on the association between the target and its visual context. In this study, participants performed a visual search task where search items were presented with depth information defined by binocular disparity. When the 3-dimensional (3D) configurations were repeated over blocks, the contextual cueing effect was obtained (Experiment 1). When depth information was in chaos over repeated configurations, visual search was not facilitated and the contextual cueing effect largely crippled (Experiment 2). However, when we made the search items within a tiny random displacement in the 2-dimentional (2D) plane but maintained the depth information constant, the contextual cueing was preserved (Experiment 3). We concluded that the contextual cueing effect was robust in the context provided by 3D space with stereoscopic information, and more importantly, the visual system prioritized stereoscopic information in learning of spatial information when depth information was available.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Unspecified 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 33%
Unspecified 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,454
of 30,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,513
of 316,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#493
of 594 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 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 30,225 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 316,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 594 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.