↓ Skip to main content

Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes
Published in
Psychological Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0861-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina U. Pfeuffer, Theresa Hosp, Eva Kimmig, Karolina Moutsopoulou, Florian Waszak, Andrea Kiesel

Abstract

Responding to stimuli leads to the formation of stimulus-response (S-R) associations that allow stimuli to subsequently automatically trigger associated responses. A recent study has shown that S-R associations are established not only by active task execution, but also by the simultaneous presentation of stimuli and verbal codes denoting responses in the absence of own action [Pfeuffer et al. (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 43:328-347, 2017)]. Here, we used an item-specific priming paradigm to investigate whether the stimulus part of S-R associations formed based on task execution and verbal codes is represented in abstract or specific format by examining whether S-R associations are retrieved for perceptually different forms of the same stimulus or not. Between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus, its format switched from image to word or vice versa. We found that, irrespective of whether stimuli were primed by task execution or verbal coding, performance was impaired when S-R mappings switched rather than repeated between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus. The finding that prime S-R mappings affected probe performance even when stimulus format switched indicates that stimuli were represented in abstract form in S-R association based on both task execution and verbal coding. Furthermore, we found no performance benefits for stimuli primed and probed in the same format rather than different formats, suggesting that stimuli were not additionally represented in specific format. Overall, our findings demonstrate the adaptability of automatized behaviors and indicate that abstract stimulus representations allow S-R associations to generalize across perceptually different stimulus formats.

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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 48%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 29%
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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,413,129
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#870
of 973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,000
of 309,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 309,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.