| Title |
The influence of lapses of attention on working memory capacity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0560-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nash Unsworth, Matthew K. Robison |
| Abstract |
In three experiments, the influence of lapses of attention on working memory (WM) capacity measures was examined. Participants performed various change detection tasks while also reporting whether they were focused on the current task or whether they were unfocused and mind-wandering. Participants reported that they were mind-wandering roughly 27% of the time, and when participants reported mind-wandering, their performance was worse compared to when they reported being on-task. Low WM capacity individuals reported more mind-wandering and lapses of attention than high WM capacity individuals, and mind-wandering and filtering abilities were shown to make independent contributions to capacity estimates. These results provide direct support for the notion that the ability to focus attention on-task and prevent lapses of attention is an important contributor to performance on measures of WM capacity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 52 | 45% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,948,434
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#344
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,840
of 279,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 279,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.