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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Old-new ERP effects and remote memories: the late parietal effect is absent as recollection fails whereas the early mid-frontal effect persists as familiarity is retained
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00532 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dimitris Tsivilis, Kevin Allan, Jenna Roberts, Nicola Williams, John Joseph Downes, Wael El-Deredy |
| Abstract |
Understanding the electrophysiological correlates of recognition memory processes has been a focus of research in recent years. This study investigated the effects of retention interval on recognition memory by comparing memory for objects encoded four weeks (remote) or 5 min (recent) before testing. In Experiment 1, event related potentials (ERPs) were acquired while participants performed a yes-no recognition memory task involving remote, recent and novel objects. Relative to correctly rejected new items, remote and recent hits showed an attenuated frontal negativity from 300-500 ms post-stimulus. This effect, also known as the FN400, has been previously associated with familiarity memory. Recent and remote recognition ERPs did not differ from each other at this time-window. By contrast, recent but not remote recognition showed increased parietal positivity from around 500 ms post-stimulus. This late parietal effect (LPE), which is considered a correlate of recollection-related processes, also discriminated between recent and remote memories. A second, behavioral experiment confirmed that remote memories unlike recent memories were based almost exclusively on familiarity. These findings support the idea that the FN400 and LPE are indices of familiarity and recollection memory, respectively and show that remote and recent memories are functionally and anatomically distinct. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Guinea | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 38 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 19% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,956,297
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,303
of 7,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,576
of 279,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#86
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 279,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.