| Title |
Is it really search or just matching? The influence of Goodness, number of stimuli and presentation sequence in same–different tasks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-013-0529-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frouke Hermens, Thomas Lachmann, Cees van Leeuwen |
| Abstract |
The Goodness of Garner dot patterns has been shown to influence same-different response times in a specific way, which has led to the formulation of a memory search model of pattern comparison. In this model, the space of possible variations of each pattern is searched separately for each pattern in the comparison, resulting in faster response times for patterns that have fewer alternatives. Compared to an alternative explanation based on stimulus encoding plus mental rotation, however, the existing data strongly favor this explanation. To obtain a more constraining set of data to distinguish between the two possible accounts, we extended the original paradigm to a situation in which participants needed to compare three, rather than two patterns and varied the way the stimuli were presented (simultaneously or sequentially). Our findings suggest that neither the memory search nor the encoding plus mental rotation model provides a complete description of the data, and that the effects of Goodness must be understood in a combination of both mechanisms, or in terms of cascades processing. |
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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 82% |
| Energy | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
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 21 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,207,938
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#473
of 966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,549
of 307,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 307,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.