↓ Skip to main content

Dopamine D2 agonist affects visuospatial working memory distractor interference depending on individual differences in baseline working memory span

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Dopamine D2 agonist affects visuospatial working memory distractor interference depending on individual differences in baseline working memory span
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13415-018-0584-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

James M. Broadway, Michael J. Frank, James F. Cavanagh

Abstract

The interplay of dopaminergic striatal D1-D2 circuits is thought to support working memory (WM) by selectively filtering information that is to be remembered versus information to be ignored. To test this theory, we conducted an experiment in which healthy participants performed a visuospatial working memory (VSWM) task after ingesting the D2-receptor agonist cabergoline (or placebo), in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover design. Results showed greater interference from distractors under cabergoline, particularly for individuals with higher baseline dopamine (indicated by WM span). These findings support computational theories of striatal D1-D2 function during WM encoding and distractor-filtering, and provide new evidence for interactive cortico-striatal systems that support VSWM capacity and their dependence on WM span.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 29%
Psychology 11 20%
Chemistry 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#3,159,657
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#148
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,280
of 335,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 335,844 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.