↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

Article Metrics

The Eye Pupil Adjusts to Imaginary Light

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
The Eye Pupil Adjusts to Imaginary Light
Published in
Psychological Science, November 2013
DOI 10.1177/0956797613503556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Laeng, Unni Sulutvedt

Abstract

If a mental image is a rerepresentation of a perception, then properties such as luminance or brightness should also be conjured up in the image. We monitored pupil diameters with an infrared eye tracker while participants first saw and then generated mental images of shapes that varied in luminance or complexity, while looking at an empty gray background. Participants also imagined familiar scenarios (e.g., a "sunny sky" or a "dark room") while looking at the same neutral screen. In all experiments, participants' eye pupils dilated or constricted, respectively, in response to dark and bright imagined objects and scenarios. Shape complexity increased mental effort and pupillary sizes independently of shapes' luminance. Because the participants were unable to voluntarily constrict their eyes' pupils, the observed pupillary adjustments to imaginary light present a strong case for accounts of mental imagery as a process based on brain states similar to those that arise during perception.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 140 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 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Italy 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 263 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 18%
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 7%
Other 59 21%
Unknown 33 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 133 47%
Neuroscience 27 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Computer Science 11 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 53 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 220. 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 23 September 2021.
All research outputs
#108,600
of 19,521,967 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#322
of 4,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,150
of 288,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#15
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,521,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 288,854 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.