↓ Skip to main content

On interpretation and task selection in studies on the effects of noise on cognitive performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
On interpretation and task selection in studies on the effects of noise on cognitive performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrik Sörqvist

Abstract

THIS PAPER DISCUSSES TWO THINGS RESEARCHERS SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN SELECTING TASKS FOR COGNITIVE NOISE STUDIES AND INTERPRETING THEIR FINDINGS: (a) The "process impurity" problem and (b) the propensity of sound to capture attention. Theoretical and methodological problems arise when the effects of noise on complex tasks (e.g., reading comprehension) are interpreted as reflecting an impairment of a specific cognitive process/system/skill. One reason for this is that complex tasks are, by definition, process impure (i.e., they involve several, distinct cognitive processes/systems/skills). Another reason is that sound can capture attention. When sound captures attention, the impairment to task scores is caused by an interruption, not by malfunctioning cognitive processes/systems/skills. Selecting more "process pure" tasks (e.g., the Stroop task) is not a solution to these problems. On the contrary, it introduces further problems with generalizability and representativeness. It is argued that cognitive noise researchers should employ representative noise, representative tasks (which are necessarily complex/process impure), and interpret the results on a behavioral level of analysis rather than on a cognitive level of analysis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
France 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 28%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 46%
Computer Science 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,245,139
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,999
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,269
of 260,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#363
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 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 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 260,462 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 377 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.