↓ Skip to main content

Finding the traces of behavioral and cognitive processes in big data and naturally occurring datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Finding the traces of behavioral and cognitive processes in big data and naturally occurring datasets
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0874-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Paxton, Thomas L. Griffiths

Abstract

Today, people generate and store more data than ever before as they interact with both real and virtual environments. These digital traces of behavior and cognition offer cognitive scientists and psychologists an unprecedented opportunity to test theories outside the laboratory. Despite general excitement about big data and naturally occurring datasets among researchers, three "gaps" stand in the way of their wider adoption in theory-driven research: the imagination gap, the skills gap, and the culture gap. We outline an approach to bridging these three gaps while respecting our responsibilities to the public as participants in and consumers of the resulting research. To that end, we introduce Data on the Mind ( http://www.dataonthemind.org ), a community-focused initiative aimed at meeting the unprecedented challenges and opportunities of theory-driven research with big data and naturally occurring datasets. We argue that big data and naturally occurring datasets are most powerfully used to supplement-not supplant-traditional experimental paradigms in order to understand human behavior and cognition, and we highlight emerging ethical issues related to the collection, sharing, and use of these powerful datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 24%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 33%
Computer Science 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 24 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,807,272
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#327
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,400
of 324,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 324,249 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.