| Title |
Distractor frequency influences performance in vibrotactile working memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-010-2501-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tyler Bancroft, Philip Servos |
| Abstract |
We use a vibrotactile-delayed match-to-sample paradigm to evaluate the effects of interference on working memory. One of the suggested mechanisms through which interference affects performance in working memory is feature overwriting: Short-term representations are maintained in a finite set of feature units (such as prefrontal neurons), and distractor stimuli co-opt some or all of those units, degrading the stored representation of an earlier stimulus. Subjects were presented with two vibrotactile stimuli and were instructed to determine whether they were of the same or different frequencies. A distractor stimulus was presented between the target and probe stimuli, the frequency of which was a function of the target stimulus. Performance on the task was affected by the frequency of the distractor, with subjects making more erroneous same judgments on different trials when the distractor frequency was closer to the probe than to the target, than when the distractor was further from the probe than the target. The results suggest that the frequency of the distractor partially overwrites the stored frequency information of the probe stimulus, providing support for the feature-overwriting explanation of working memory interference. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 45% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 14% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
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 25 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,451,584
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,911
of 180,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 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 3,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 180,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.