↓ Skip to main content

Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing
Published in
Psychological Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00426-016-0762-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioana Stanciu, Stefanie C. Biehl, Constanze Hesse

Abstract

It is beyond controversy that in bimanual coordination tasks, parameter planning related to the movements of one hand influences the planning and execution of movements simultaneously performed with the other hand. A well-researched example of such bimanual interference is the finding that reaction times tend to be longer when preparing bimanual pointing movements with different amplitudes than for equal amplitude movements. Interestingly, these reaction time costs were found to increase when movement targets were cued symbolically (e.g., using letters) as compared to spatially. Therefore, it was suggested that interference may be primarily related to cue translation and response selection processes rather than resulting from cross-talk at the motor programming level. Here, we argue that spatial interference effects do not necessarily depend on the type of cues used but instead depend on the general task demands (difficulty). In two experiments we show that bimanual interference effects can (1) be abolished in symbolic cueing conditions when highly compatible cues placing minimal demands on response selection processes are used and (2) occur in direct/spatial cueing conditions when a secondary cognitively demanding, but movement-unrelated task is performed. Thus, our findings suggest that whether or not interference effects emerge during movement planning depends on the overall task difficulty and hence the resources available during movement preparation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 67%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,238,211
of 12,541,300 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#254
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,579
of 265,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,541,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 265,518 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.