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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavioral and Brain Functions, March 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1744-9081-3-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ching-Hung Lin, Yao-Chu Chiu, Po-Lei Lee, Jen-Chuen Hsieh |
| Abstract |
The Iowa gambling task is a popular test for examining monetary decision behavior under uncertainty. According to Dunn et al. review article, the difficult-to-explain phenomenon of "prominent deck B" was revealed, namely that normal decision makers prefer bad final-outcome deck B to good final-outcome decks C or D. This phenomenon was demonstrated especially clearly by Wilder et al. and Toplak et al. The "prominent deck B" phenomenon is inconsistent with the basic assumption in the IGT; however, most IGT-related studies utilized the "summation" of bad decks A and B when presenting their data, thereby avoiding the problems associated with deck B. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Belgium | 2 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 153 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Professor | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 95 | 57% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,444,902
of 23,408,972 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#125
of 397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,992
of 76,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,408,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 76,910 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them