↓ Skip to main content

Differences in learning rates for item and associative memories between amnestic mild cognitive impairment and healthy controls

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
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.
Title
Differences in learning rates for item and associative memories between amnestic mild cognitive impairment and healthy controls
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-9-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pengyun Wang, Juan Li, Huijie Li, Shouzi Zhang

Abstract

It has been established that the overall performance of associative memory was disproportionately impaired in contrast to item memory in aMCI (Amnestic mild cognitive impairment) patients, but little is known about the specific aspects of the memory process that show differences between aMCI and healthy controls. By comparing an item-item associative learning test with an individual item learning test, the present study investigated whether the rate of learning was slower in associative memory than in item memory in aMCI. Furthermore, we examined whether deficits in intertrial acquisition and consolidation contributed to the potential disproportionate impairments in the learning rate of associative memory for aMCI patients. In addition, we further explored whether the aMCI-discriminative power of the associative memory test increases more than that of the item memory test when the number of learning-test trials increases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 40%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,558,403
of 6,245,029 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#140
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,617
of 100,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,245,029 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 100,785 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.