↓ Skip to main content

Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01290
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon J. Bennett, Spencer J. Hayes, Makoto Uji

Abstract

Motivated by recent findings of improved perceptual processing and perceptual-motor skill following stroboscopic vision training, the current study examined the performance and acquisition effects of stroboscopic vision methods that afford a different visual experience. In Experiment 1, we conducted a within-subject design study to examine performance of a multiple object tracking (MOT) task in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe®, PLATO visual occlusion, and intermittent display presentation) operating at 5.6, 3.2, or 1.8 Hz. We found that participants maintained MOT performance in the Vapor Strobe condition irrespective of strobe rate. However, MOT performance deteriorated as strobe rate was reduced in the other two stroboscopic vision conditions. Moreover, at the lowest strobe rate (1.8 Hz) there was an increase in probe reaction time, thus indicating an increased attentional demand due to the stroboscopic vision. In Experiment 2, we conducted a mixed design study to examine if practice in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe® and PLATO visual occlusion) influenced acquisition of a novel precision-aiming task [i.e., multiple object avoidance (MOA) task] compared to a normal vision group. Participants in the PLATO visual occlusion group exhibited worse performance during practice than the Vapor Strobe and normal vision groups. At post-test, the Vapor Strobe group demonstrated greater success and reduced end-point error than the normal vision and PLATO groups. We interpret these findings as showing that both an intermittent perturbation (Nike Vapor Strobe®) and elimination (PLATO visual occlusion and intermittent display presentation) of visual motion and form are more attention demanding (Experiment 1), however, the intermittent perturbation, but not elimination, of visual motion and form can facilitate acquisition of perceptual-motor skill (Experiment 2) in situations where it is necessary to maintain and update a spatio-temporal representation of multiple moving objects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 7 16%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Psychology 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,059,130
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,241
of 30,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,946
of 330,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#362
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,477 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 65% 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 330,300 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 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.