| Title |
A “spoon full of sugar” helps the medicine go down: How a participant friendly version of a psychophysics task significantly improves task engagement, performance and data quality in a typical adult sample
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0922-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marie L. Smith, M. Letizia Cesana, Emily K. Farran, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Louise Ewing |
| Abstract |
Few would argue that the unique insights brought by studying the typical and atypical development of psychological processes are essential to building a comprehensive understanding of the brain. Often, however, the associated challenges of working with non-standard adult populations results in the more complex psychophysical paradigms being rejected as too complex. Recently we created a child- (and clinical group) friendly implementation of one such technique - the reverse-correlation Bubbles approach - and noted an associated performance boost in adult participants. Here, we compare the administration of three different versions of this participant-friendly task in the same adult participants to empirically confirm that introducing elements in the experiment with the sole purpose of improving the participant experience, not only boosts the participant's engagement and motivation for the task but results in a significantly improved objective task performance and stronger statistical results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 Kingdom | 13 | 59% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Czechia | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,613,578
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#297
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,031
of 329,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 329,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.