| Title |
Overwriting and intrusion in short-term memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0570-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tyler D. Bancroft, Jeffery A. Jones, Tyler M. Ensor, William E. Hockley, Philip Servos |
| Abstract |
Studies of interference in working and short-term memory suggest that irrelevant information may overwrite the contents of memory or intrude into memory. While some previous studies have reported greater interference when irrelevant information is similar to the contents of memory than when it is dissimilar, other studies have reported greater interference for dissimilar distractors than for similar distractors. In the present study, we find the latter effect in a paradigm that uses auditory tones as stimuli. We suggest that the effects of distractor similarity to memory contents are mediated by the type of information held in memory, particularly the complexity or simplicity of information. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 64% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#14,764,269
of 25,634,695 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#772
of 1,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,786
of 396,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,634,695 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 396,200 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.