↓ Skip to main content

Validating a visual version of the metronome response task

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Validating a visual version of the metronome response task
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, February 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1020-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Laflamme, Paul Seli, Daniel Smilek

Abstract

The metronome response task (MRT)-a sustained-attention task that requires participants to produce a response in synchrony with an audible metronome-was recently developed to index response variability in the context of studies on mind wandering. In the present studies, we report on the development and validation of a visual version of the MRT (the visual metronome response task; vMRT), which uses the rhythmic presentation of visual, rather than auditory, stimuli. Participants completed the vMRT (Studies 1 and 2) and the original (auditory-based) MRT (Study 2) while also responding to intermittent thought probes asking them to report the depth of their mind wandering. The results showed that (1) individual differences in response variability during the vMRT are highly reliable; (2) prior to thought probes, response variability increases with increasing depth of mind wandering; (3) response variability is highly consistent between the vMRT and the original MRT; and (4) both response variability and depth of mind wandering increase with increasing time on task. Our results indicate that the original MRT findings are consistent across the visual and auditory modalities, and that the response variability measured in both tasks indexes a non-modality-specific tendency toward behavioral variability. The vMRT will be useful in the place of the MRT in experimental contexts in which researchers' designs require a visual-based primary task.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 30%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Master 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 40%
Neuroscience 5 25%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 September 2020.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,896
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,290
of 454,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#30
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 454,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.