| Title |
The impact of task relevance and degree of distraction on stimulus processing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neuroscience, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2202-14-107 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefanie C Biehl, Ann-Christine Ehlis, Laura D Müller, Andrea Niklaus, Paul Pauli, Martin J Herrmann |
| Abstract |
The impact of task relevance on event-related potential amplitudes of early visual processing was previously demonstrated. Study designs, however, differ greatly, not allowing simultaneous investigation of how both degree of distraction and task relevance influence processing variations. In our study, we combined different features of previous tasks. We used a modified 1-back task in which task relevant and task irrelevant stimuli were alternately presented. The task irrelevant stimuli could be from the same or from a different category as the task relevant stimuli, thereby producing high and low distracting task irrelevant stimuli. In addition, the paradigm comprised a passive viewing condition. Thus, our paradigm enabled us to compare the processing of task relevant stimuli, task irrelevant stimuli with differing degrees of distraction, and passively viewed stimuli. EEG data from twenty participants was collected and mean P100 and N170 amplitudes were analyzed. Furthermore, a potential connection of stimulus processing and symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was investigated. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Romania | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 14% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#5,005,560
of 24,323,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#220
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,768
of 212,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#9
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,267 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 212,198 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.