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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Novice Shooters With Lower Pre-shooting Alpha Power Have Better Performance During Competition in a Virtual Reality Scenario
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00527 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Pereira, Ferran Argelaguet, José del R. Millán, Anatole Lécuyer |
| Abstract |
Competition changes the environment for athletes. The difficulty of training for such stressful events can lead to the well-known effect of "choking" under pressure, which prevents athletes from performing at their best level. To study the effect of competition on the human brain, we recorded pilot electroencephalography (EEG) data while novice shooters were immersed in a realistic virtual environment representing a shooting range. We found a differential between-subject effect of competition on mu (8-12 Hz) oscillatory activity during aiming; compared to training, the more the subject was able to desynchronize his mu rhythm during competition, the better was his shooting performance. Because this differential effect could not be explained by differences in simple measures of the kinematics and muscular activity, nor by the effect of competition or shooting performance per se, we interpret our results as evidence that mu desynchronization has a positive effect on performance during competition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 11 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 10% |
| Engineering | 6 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,240,465
of 24,832,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,841
of 33,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,679
of 334,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#289
of 580 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,832,302 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 334,506 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 580 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.