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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Aging impairs deliberation and behavioral flexibility in inter-temporal choice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00041 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yannick-André Breton, Kelsey D. Seeland, A. David Redish |
| Abstract |
Inter-temporal choice depends on multiple, interacting systems, some of which may be compromised with age. Some of these systems may be responsible for ongoing trial-by-trial choice strategies. Some may represent the consequences of action. Some may be necessary for the coupling between anticipated consequences and strategies currently in use, flexibly guiding behavior. When faced with a difficult decision, rats will orient back and forth, a behavior termed "vicarious trial and error" (VTE). Recent experiments have linked the occurrence of VTE to hippocampal search processes and behavioral flexibility. We tested 5 month (n = 6), 9 month (n = 8) and over-27 month-old (n = 10) rats on a Spatial Adjusting Delay Discounting task to examine how aging impacted lap-by-lap strategies and VTE during inter-temporal choice. Rats chose between spatially separated food goals that provided a smaller-sooner or larger-later reward. On each lap, the delay to the larger-later reward was adjusted as a function of the rat's decisions, increasing by 1 s after delayed-side choices and decreasing by 1 s after non-delayed side choices. The strategies that aged rats used differed from those used in young and adult rats. Moreover, aged rats produced reliably more VTE behaviors, for protracted periods of time, uncoupled from behavioral flexibility. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 36% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#7,744,540
of 23,549,388 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,809
of 4,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,409
of 264,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,549,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 264,959 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.