↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

“Cuts in Action”: A High‐Density EEG Study Investigating the Neural Correlates of Different Editing Techniques in Film

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Science, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
“Cuts in Action”: A High‐Density EEG Study Investigating the Neural Correlates of Different Editing Techniques in Film
Published in
Cognitive Science, November 2016
DOI 10.1111/cogs.12439
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heimann, Katrin S., Uithol, Sebo, Calbi, Marta, Umiltà, Maria A., Guerra, Michele, Gallese, Vittorio, Heimann, Katrin S, Umiltà, Maria A

Abstract

In spite of their striking differences with real-life perception, films are perceived and understood without effort. Cognitive film theory attributes this to the system of continuity editing, a system of editing guidelines outlining the effect of different cuts and edits on spectators. A major principle in this framework is the 180° rule, a rule recommendation that, to avoid spectators' attention to the editing, two edited shots of the same event or action should not be filmed from angles differing in a way that expectations of spatial continuity are strongly violated. In the present study, we used high-density EEG to explore the neural underpinnings of this rule. In particular, our analysis shows that cuts and edits in general elicit early ERP component indicating the registration of syntactic violations as known from language, music, and action processing. However, continuity edits and cuts-across the line differ from each other regarding later components likely to be indicating the differences in spatial remapping as well as in the degree of conscious awareness of one's own perception. Interestingly, a time-frequency analysis of the occipital alpha rhythm did not support the hypothesis that such differences in processing routes are mainly linked to visual attention. On the contrary, our study found specific modulations of the central mu rhythm ERD as an indicator of sensorimotor activity, suggesting that sensorimotor networks might play an important role. We think that these findings shed new light on current discussions about the role of attention and embodied perception in film perception and should be considered when explaining spectators' different experience of different kinds of cuts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 21%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 24%
Arts and Humanities 7 21%
Psychology 7 21%
Unspecified 5 15%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 15%

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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,981,993
of 12,369,575 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Science
#667
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,105
of 347,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Science
#28
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,369,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 347,816 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.