↓ Skip to main content

Unconsciously Triggered Conflict Adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2010
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Unconsciously Triggered Conflict Adaptation
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011508
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon van Gaal, Victor A. F. Lamme, K. Richard Ridderinkhof

Abstract

In conflict tasks such as the Stroop, the Eriksen flanker or the Simon task, it is generally observed that the detection of conflict in the current trial reduces the impact of conflicting information in the subsequent trial; a phenomenon termed conflict adaptation. This higher-order cognitive control function has been assumed to be restricted to cases where conflict is experienced consciously. In the present experiment we manipulated the awareness of conflict-inducing stimuli in a metacontrast masking paradigm to directly test this assumption. Conflicting response tendencies were elicited either consciously (through primes that were weakly masked) or unconsciously (strongly masked primes). We demonstrate trial-by-trial conflict adaptation effects after conscious as well as unconscious conflict, which could not be explained by direct stimulus/response repetitions. These findings show that unconscious information can have a longer-lasting influence on our behavior than previously thought and further stretch the functional boundaries of unconscious cognition.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
France 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 167 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 25%
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 17 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 109 58%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 22 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 September 2011.
All research outputs
#2,674,399
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#34,164
of 193,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,414
of 94,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#175
of 719 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 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 193,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 94,313 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 719 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.