| Title |
Multiple event monitoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-016-0022-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chia-Chien Wu, Jeremy M. Wolfe |
| Abstract |
Suppose you were monitoring a group of people in order to determine if anyone of them did something suspicious (e.g., putting down a bag) or if any two interacted in a suspicious manner (e.g., trading bags). How large a group could you monitor successfully? This paper reports on six experiments in which observers monitor a group of entities, watching for an event. Whether the event was performed by a single entity or was an interaction between a pair, the capacity for event monitoring was two to three items. This was lower than the multiple object tracking capacity for the same stimuli (approximately six items). Capacity was essentially the same whether entities were identical circles or unique cartoon animals; nor was capacity changed by an added requirement to identify the entities involved in an event. Event monitoring appears to be related to, but not identical to, multiple object tracking. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#302
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#354,080
of 419,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 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 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.1. 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 419,619 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 15 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.