↓ Skip to main content

Re-evaluating the relationships among filtering activity, unnecessary storage, and visual working memory capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Re-evaluating the relationships among filtering activity, unnecessary storage, and visual working memory capacity
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13415-015-0341-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen M. Emrich, Michael A. Busseri

Abstract

The amount of task-irrelevant information encoded in visual working memory (VWM), referred to as unnecessary storage, has been proposed as a potential mechanism underlying individual differences in VWM capacity. In addition, a number of studies have provided evidence for additional activity that initiates the filtering process originating in the frontal cortex and basal ganglia, and is therefore a crucial step in the link between unnecessary storage and VWM capacity. Here, we re-examine data from two prominent studies that identified unnecessary storage activity as a predictor of VWM capacity by directly testing the implied path model linking filtering-related activity, unnecessary storage, and VWM capacity. Across both studies, we found that unnecessary storage was not a significant predictor of individual differences in VWM capacity once activity associated with filtering was accounted for; instead, activity associated with filtering better explained variation in VWM capacity. These findings suggest that unnecessary storage is not a limiting factor in VWM performance, whereas neural activity associated with filtering may play a more central role in determining VWM performance that goes beyond preventing unnecessary storage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Netherlands 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 38 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 55%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Philosophy 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
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 10 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,281,005
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#471
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,640
of 258,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 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 258,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.