↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

Article Metrics

Pupillary Responses to Illusions of Brightness in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in i-Perception, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Pupillary Responses to Illusions of Brightness in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Published in
i-Perception, May 2018
DOI 10.1177/2041669518771716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Laeng, Fredrik Svartdal Færevaag, Stine Tanggaard, Stephen von Tetzchner

Abstract

Previous studies indicate that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not experience optical illusions in the same manner as individuals with typical development. This study uses pupillary responses as an objective measure of perception of visual illusions, with the hypothesis that adults with ASD will show weaker pupillary constrictions to the illusions than adults without ASD. An eye-tracker was used to investigate the spontaneous pupillary changes to brightness illusions in adults diagnosed with ASD (N = 11) and in a control group (N = 24). Contrary to the hypothesis, the ASD group showed similar pupillary constrictions to the illusory bright stimuli as the control group. Therefore, this study does not support the idea that individuals with ASD have a veridical perception of these types of illusions and instead suggest that atypical perception of illusions does not constitute a universal characteristic of aspect of high-functioning individuals with ASD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 23%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Engineering 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,517,443
of 18,834,855 outputs
Outputs from i-Perception
#149
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,973
of 290,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from i-Perception
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,834,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 290,049 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.