↓ Skip to main content

Attentional Tuning Resets after Failures of Perceptual Awareness

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Attentional Tuning Resets after Failures of Perceptual Awareness
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060623
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul E. Dux, Warrick Roseboom, Christian N. L. Olivers

Abstract

Key to successfully negotiating our environment is our ability to adapt to current settings based on recent experiences and behaviour. Response conflict paradigms (e.g., the Stroop task) have provided evidence for increases in executive control after errors, leading to slowed responses that are more likely to be correct, and less susceptible to response congruency effects. Here we investigate whether failures of perceptual awareness, rather than failures at decisional or response stages of information processing, lead to similar adjustments in visual attention. We employed an attentional blink task in which subjects often fail to consciously register the second of two targets embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation stream of distractors, and examined how target errors influence performance on subsequent trials. Performance was inferior after Target 2 errors and these inter-trial effects were independent of the temporal lag between the targets and were not due to more global changes in attention across runs of trials. These results shed light on the nature of attentional calibration in response to failures of perceptual consciousness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Chile 1 2%
India 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 39 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 48%
Engineering 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,333,600
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,062
of 193,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,478
of 199,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,915
of 5,292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 199,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.