↓ Skip to main content

Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation.

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 953)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation.
Published in
Memory & Cognition, April 2011
DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0098-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelies Vredeveldt, Graham J. Hitch, Alan D. Baddeley

Abstract

Closing the eyes helps memory. We investigated the mechanisms underlying the eyeclosure effect by exposing 80 eyewitnesses to different types of distraction during the witness interview: blank screen (control), eyes closed, visual distraction, and auditory distraction. We examined the cognitive load hypothesis by comparing any type of distraction (visual or auditory) with minimal distraction (blank screen or eyes closed). We found recall to be significantly better when distraction was minimal, providing evidence that eyeclosure reduces cognitive load. We examined the modality-specific interference hypothesis by comparing the effects of visual and auditory distraction on recall of visual and auditory information. Visual and auditory distraction selectively impaired memory for information presented in the same modality, supporting the role of visualisation in the eyeclosure effect. Analysis of recall in terms of grain size revealed that recall of basic information about the event was robust, whereas recall of specific details was prone to both general and modality-specific disruptions.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 4%
Japan 2 2%
Australia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 83 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Researcher 8 9%
Professor 5 5%
Other 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 65%
Computer Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Linguistics 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#391,433
of 7,917,108 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#36
of 953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,711
of 79,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,917,108 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 79,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.