| Title |
A study of static, kinetic, and dynamic visual acuity in 102 Japanese professional baseball players
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s41047 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kohji Hoshina, Yuichi Tagami, Osamu Mimura, Hiroshi Edagawa, Masao Matsubara, Teiichi Nakayama |
| Abstract |
It seemed that visual functions might have some effects on the performance of baseball players. We measured static, kinetic, and dynamic visual acuity (SVA, KVA, and DVA, respectively) of Japanese professional baseball players to ascertain whether there would be any difference in SVA, KVA, and DVA among player groups stratified according to their performance level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 28% |
| Psychology | 5 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,332
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,495
of 206,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#15
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 206,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 63% of its contemporaries.