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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep20740 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Denis O’Hora, Rachel Carey, Aoife Kervick, David Crowley, Maciej Dabrowski |
| Abstract |
People tend to discount rewards or losses that occur in the future. Such delay discounting has been linked to many behavioral and health problems, since people choose smaller short-term gains over greater long-term gains. We investigated whether the effect of delays on the subjective value of rewards is expressed in how people move when they make choices. Over 600 patrons of the RISK LAB exhibition hosted by the Science Gallery Dublin(TM) played a short computer game in which they used a computer mouse to choose between amounts of money at various delays. Typical discounting effects were observed and decision dynamics indicated that choosing smaller short-term rewards became easier (i.e., shorter response times, tighter trajectories, less vacillation) as the delays until later rewards increased. Based on a sequence of choices, subjective values of delayed outcomes were estimated and decision dynamics during initial choices predicted these values. Decision dynamics are affected by subjective values of available options and thus provide a means to estimate such values. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 6 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 21% |
| France | 3 | 16% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
| Scientists | 5 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 43% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 24% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,581,098
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#22,722
of 138,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,867
of 412,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#590
of 3,354 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 138,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 412,529 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,354 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.