| Title |
The attribution of value-based attentional priority in individuals with depressive symptoms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-014-0301-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian A. Anderson, Stephanie L. Leal, Michelle G. Hall, Michael A. Yassa, Steven Yantis |
| Abstract |
The capture of attention by stimuli previously associated with reward has been demonstrated across a wide range of studies. Such value-based attentional priority appears to be robust, and cases where reward feedback fails to modulate subsequent attention have not been reported. However, individuals differ in their sensitivity to external rewards, and such sensitivity is abnormally blunted in depression. Here, we show that depressive symptomology is accompanied by insensitivity to value-based attentional bias. We replicate attentional capture by stimuli previously associated with reward in a control sample and show that these same reward-related stimuli do not capture attention in individuals experiencing symptoms of depression. This sharp contrast in performance indicates that value-based attentional biases depend on the normal functioning of the brain's reward system and suggests that a failure to preferentially attend to reward-related information may play a role in the experience of depression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 26% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 60 | 53% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,977,154
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#346
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,447
of 230,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 230,240 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.