↓ 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 (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
308 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 135 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 308 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%
Switzerland 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 286 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 19%
Researcher 54 18%
Student > Master 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 6%
Other 63 20%
Unknown 43 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 136 44%
Neuroscience 31 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Computer Science 12 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 3%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 62 20%

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 10 May 2022.
All research outputs
#141,310
of 22,647,730 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#362
of 4,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,327
of 306,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#12
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,647,730 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 4,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 80.5. 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 306,199 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 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.