↓ Skip to main content

Neuroimaging Evidence for Processes Underlying Repetition of Ignored Stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Neuroimaging Evidence for Processes Underlying Repetition of Ignored Stimuli
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Bauer, Helge Gebhardt, Christoph Ruprecht, Bernd Gallhofer, Gebhard Sammer

Abstract

Prolonged response times are observed with targets having been presented as distractors immediately before, called negative priming effect. Among others, inhibitory and retrieval processes have been suggested underlying this behavioral effect. As those processes would involve different neural activation patterns, a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study including 28 subjects was conducted. Two tasks were used to investigate stimulus repetition effects. One task focused on target location, the other on target identity. Both tasks are known to elicit the expected response time effects. However, there is less agreement about the relationship of those tasks with the explanatory accounts under consideration. Based on within-subject comparisons we found clear differences between the experimental repetition conditions and the neutral control condition on neural level for both tasks. Hemodynamic fronto-striatal activation patterns occurred for the location-based task favoring the selective inhibition account. Hippocampal activation found for the identity-based task suggests an assignment to the retrieval account; however, this task lacked a behavioral effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 7%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 45%
Neuroscience 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 May 2012.
All research outputs
#6,693,313
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#78,734
of 193,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,359
of 163,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,243
of 3,689 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,509 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 163,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,689 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.