↓ Skip to main content

Distributed and opposing effects of incidental learning in the human brain

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Distributed and opposing effects of incidental learning in the human brain
Published in
NeuroImage, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle G. Hall, Claire K. Naughtin, Jason B. Mattingley, Paul E. Dux

Abstract

Incidental learning affords a behavioural advantage when sensory information matches regularities that have previously been encountered. Previous studies have taken a focused approach by probing the involvement of specific candidate brain regions underlying incidentally acquired memory representations, as well as expectation effects on early sensory representations. Here, we investigated the broader extent of the brain's sensitivity to violations and fulfilments of expectations, using an incidental learning paradigm in which the contingencies between target locations and target identities were manipulated without participants' overt knowledge. Multivariate analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data was applied to compare the consistency of neural activity for visual events that the contingency manipulation rendered likely versus unlikely. We observed widespread sensitivity to expectations across frontal, temporal, occipital, and sub-cortical areas. These activation clusters showed distinct response profiles, such that some regions displayed more reliable activation patterns under fulfilled expectations, whereas others showed more reliable patterns when expectations were violated. These findings reveal that expectations affect multiple stages of information processing during visual decision making, rather than early sensory processing stages alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 27%
Neuroscience 6 20%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,549,873
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#3,804
of 12,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,636
of 343,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#78
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 343,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.