↓ Skip to main content

Self-Associations Influence Task-Performance through Bayesian Inference

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Self-Associations Influence Task-Performance through Bayesian Inference
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00490
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara L. Bengtsson, Will D. Penny

Abstract

The way we think about ourselves impacts greatly on our behavior. This paper describes a behavioral study and a computational model that shed new light on this important area. Participants were primed "clever" and "stupid" using a scrambled sentence task, and we measured the effect on response time and error-rate on a rule-association task. First, we observed a confirmation bias effect in that associations to being "stupid" led to a gradual decrease in performance, whereas associations to being "clever" did not. Second, we observed that the activated self-concepts selectively modified attention toward one's performance. There was an early to late double dissociation in RTs in that primed "clever" resulted in RT increase following error responses, whereas primed "stupid" resulted in RT increase following correct responses. We propose a computational model of subjects' behavior based on the logic of the experimental task that involves two processes; memory for rules and the integration of rules with subsequent visual cues. The model incorporates an adaptive decision threshold based on Bayes rule, whereby decision thresholds are increased if integration was inferred to be faulty. Fitting the computational model to experimental data confirmed our hypothesis that priming affects the memory process. This model explains both the confirmation bias and double dissociation effects and demonstrates that Bayesian inferential principles can be used to study the effect of self-concepts on behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
China 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Professor 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 50%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 January 2014.
All research outputs
#2,661,150
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,231
of 7,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,218
of 291,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#203
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,768 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 291,279 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.