↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Enhancement

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 5: Attention.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

1 tweeter


2 Dimensions

Readers on

37 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.
Chapter title
Chapter number 5
Book title
Cognitive Enhancement
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16522-6_5
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-916521-9, 978-3-31-916522-6

Callahan, Patrick M, Terry, Alvin V, Patrick M. Callahan, Alvin V. Terry


The ability to focus one's attention on important environmental stimuli while ignoring irrelevant stimuli is fundamental to human cognition and intellectual function. Attention is inextricably linked to perception, learning and memory, and executive function; however, it is often impaired in a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Accordingly, attention is considered as an important therapeutic target in these disorders. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the most common behavioral paradigms of attention that have been used in animals (particularly rodents) and to review the literature where these tasks have been employed to elucidate neurobiological substrates of attention as well as to evaluate novel pharmacological agents for their potential as treatments for disorders of attention. These paradigms include two tasks of sustained attention that were developed as rodent analogues of the human Continuous Performance Task (CPT), the Five-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5-CSRTT) and the more recently introduced Five-Choice Continuous Performance Task (5C-CPT), and the Signal Detection Task (SDT) which was designed to emphasize temporal components of attention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 30%
Neuroscience 10 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Chemistry 1 3%
Unknown 11 30%

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 16 May 2015.
All research outputs
of 5,104,077 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 170,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,104,077 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 170,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.