| Title |
SMARTA: Automated testing apparatus for visual discrimination tasks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-018-1113-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raymond Vagell, Vance J. Vagell, Rachel L. Jacobs, James Gordon, Andrea L. Baden |
| Abstract |
This article introduces the open-source Subject-Mediated Automatic Remote Testing Apparatus (SMARTA) for visual discrimination tasks, which aims to streamline and ease data collection, eliminate or reduce observer error, increase interobserver agreement, and automate data entry without the need for an internet connection. SMARTA is inexpensive and easy to build, and it can be modified to accommodate a variety of experimental designs. Here we describe the utility and functionality of SMARTA in a captive setting. We present the results from a case study of color vision in ruffed lemurs (Varecia spp.) at the Duke Lemur Center in Durham, North Carolina, in which we demonstrate SMARTA's utility for two-choice color discrimination tasks, as well as its ability to streamline and standardize data collection. We also include detailed instructions for constructing and implementing the fully integrated SMARTA touchscreen system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 39% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Senegal | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Philippines | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 4% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 57% |
| Scientists | 6 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Researcher | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 62% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 62% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 25 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,539,134
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#138
of 2,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,377
of 346,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#5
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 346,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.