↓ Skip to main content

I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing – Learning Dynamics and Effects of Feedback Type and Monetary Incentive in a Paired Associate Deterministic Learning Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing – Learning Dynamics and Effects of Feedback Type and Monetary Incentive in a Paired Associate Deterministic Learning Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00935
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magda Gawlowska, Ewa Beldzik, Aleksandra Domagalik, Adam Gagol, Tadeusz Marek, Justyna Mojsa-Kaja

Abstract

Effective functioning in a complex environment requires adjusting of behavior according to changing situational demands. To do so, organisms must learn new, more adaptive behaviors by extracting the necessary information from externally provided feedback. Not surprisingly, feedback-guided learning has been extensively studied using multiple research paradigms. The purpose of the present study was to test the newly designed Paired Associate Deterministic Learning task (PADL), in which participants were presented with either positive or negative deterministic feedback. Moreover, we manipulated the level of motivation in the learning process by comparing blocks with strictly cognitive, informative feedback to blocks where participants were additionally motivated by anticipated monetary reward or loss. Our results proved the PADL to be a useful tool not only for studying the learning process in a deterministic environment, but also, due to the varying task conditions, for assessing differences in learning patterns. Particularly, we show that the learning process itself is influenced by manipulating both the type of feedback information and the motivational significance associated with the expected monetary reward.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 23%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,346,585
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,212
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,023
of 317,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#387
of 599 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 599 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.