↓ Skip to main content

Fleeting reliability in the dot-probe task

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Fleeting reliability in the dot-probe task
Published in
Psychological Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0947-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angus Chapman, Christel Devue, Gina M. Grimshaw

Abstract

In a dot-probe task, two cues-one emotional and one neutral-are followed by a probe in one of their locations. Faster responses to probes co-located with the emotional stimulus are taken as evidence of attentional bias. Several studies indicate that such attentional bias measures have poor reliability, even though ERP studies show that people reliably attend to the emotional stimulus. This inconsistency might arise because the emotional stimulus captures attention briefly (as indicated by ERP), but cues appear for long enough that attention can be redistributed before the probe onset, causing RT measures of bias to vary across trials. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony between onset of the cues and onset of the probe) in a dot-probe task using angry and neutral faces. Across three experiments, the internal reliability of behavioural biases was significantly greater than zero when probes followed faces by 100 ms, but not when the SOA was 300, 500, or 900 ms. Thus, the initial capture of attention shows some level of consistency, but this diminishes quickly. Even at the shortest SOA internal reliability estimates were poor, and not sufficient to justify the use of the task as an index of individual differences in attentional bias.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 36 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 70 48%
Neuroscience 13 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Physics and Astronomy 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 45 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#15,564,010
of 25,116,143 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#487
of 1,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,115
of 449,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,116,143 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,015 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 51% 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 449,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.