↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of interaction-dominant dynamics in individual versus collaborative memory foraging

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Patterns of interaction-dominant dynamics in individual versus collaborative memory foraging
Published in
Cognitive Processing, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10339-015-0731-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janelle Szary, Rick Dale, Christopher T. Kello, Theo Rhodes

Abstract

The extent to which a cognitive system's behavioral dynamics fit a power law distribution is considered indicative of the extent to which that system's behavior is driven by multiplicative, interdependent interactions between its components. Here, we investigate the dynamics of memory processes in individual and collaborating participants. Collaborative dyads showed the characteristic collaborative inhibition effect when compared to nominal groups in terms of the number of items retrieved in a categorical recall task, but they also generate qualitatively different patterns of search behavior. To categorize search behavior, we used multi-model inference to compare the degree to which five candidate models (normal, exponential, gamma, lognormal, and Pareto) described the temporal distribution of each individual and dyad's recall processes. All individual and dyad recall processes were best fit by interaction-dominant distributions (lognormal and Pareto), but a clear difference emerged in that individual behavior is more power law, and collaborative behavior was more lognormal. We discuss these results in terms of the cocktail model (Holden et al. in Psychol Rev 116(2):318-342, 2009), which suggests that as a task becomes more constrained (such as through the necessity of collaborating), behavior can shift from power law to lognormal. This shift may reflect a decrease in the dyad's ability to flexibly shift between perseverative and explorative search patterns. Finally, our results suggest that a fruitful avenue for future research would be to investigate the constraints modulating the shift from power law to lognormal behavior in collaborative memory search.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,772,019
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#228
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,044
of 268,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 268,158 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 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.