↓ Skip to main content

The Perception of Deceptive Information Can Be Enhanced by Training That Removes Superficial Visual Information

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
The Perception of Deceptive Information Can Be Enhanced by Training That Removes Superficial Visual Information
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donghyun Ryu, Bruce Abernethy, So Hyun Park, David L. Mann

Abstract

The ability to detect deceptive intent within actions is a crucial element of skill across many tasks. Evidence suggests that deceptive actions may rely on the use of superficial visual information to hide the basic kinematic information which specifies the actor's intent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the ability of observers to anticipate deceptive actions could be enhanced by training which removes superficial visual information. Novice badminton players (n = 36) were allocated to one of three groups who performed perceptual training over 3 days, with the efficacy of training assessed using tests of anticipatory skill conducted at pre-test, post-test, and a 1-week retention test. During training, participants watched a series of non-deceptive badminton shots performed by actors, with the footage manipulated to display either (i) low spatial-frequency information only (low-SF training group; blurring to remove superficial information); (ii) high spatial-frequency information only (high-SF training group; an 'edge detector' to highlight superficial information); or (iii) normal vision (normal-SF group). Participants were asked to anticipate the direction of the shuttle when footage was occluded at the moment of racquet-shuttle contact. In the post-test, response accuracy (RA) when viewing deceptive trials was higher for the low-SF training group when compared to the normal-SF (control) training group (p = 0.005), with the difference retained in the retention test (p = 0.020). High-SF training resulted in greater performance at post-test (p = 0.038) but not retention (p = 0.956). The analysis of gaze provided some explanation for the findings, with the low-SF training group spending more time after training fixating on the location of racquet-shuttle contact than did the normal training group (p = 0.028). The findings demonstrate that training which conveys only the basic kinematic movements visible in low-SF information may be effective in learning to 'see-through' deceptive intent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 2 3%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 30 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 17 23%
Psychology 9 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 32 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#7,263,731
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,468
of 34,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,617
of 341,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#316
of 732 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 341,372 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 732 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.