↓ Skip to main content

The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
Title
The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00221-016-4590-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanne ten Oever, Vincenzo Romei, Nienke van Atteveldt, Salvador Soto-Faraco, Micah M. Murray, Pawel J. Matusz

Abstract

Our understanding of how perception operates in real-world environments has been substantially advanced by studying both multisensory processes and "top-down" control processes influencing sensory processing via activity from higher-order brain areas, such as attention, memory, and expectations. As the two topics have been traditionally studied separately, the mechanisms orchestrating real-world multisensory processing remain unclear. Past work has revealed that the observer's goals gate the influence of many multisensory processes on brain and behavioural responses, whereas some other multisensory processes might occur independently of these goals. Consequently, other forms of top-down control beyond goal dependence are necessary to explain the full range of multisensory effects currently reported at the brain and the cognitive level. These forms of control include sensitivity to stimulus context as well as the detection of matches (or lack thereof) between a multisensory stimulus and categorical attributes of naturalistic objects (e.g. tools, animals). In this review we discuss and integrate the existing findings that demonstrate the importance of such goal-, object- and context-based top-down control over multisensory processing. We then put forward a few principles emerging from this literature review with respect to the mechanisms underlying multisensory processing and discuss their possible broader implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Turkey 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 118 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 31%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 37%
Neuroscience 23 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,448,181
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#583
of 3,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,764
of 313,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 3,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 313,414 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.