↓ Skip to main content

Attentional Filter Training but Not Memory Training Improves Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Attentional Filter Training but Not Memory Training Improves Decision-Making
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marlen Schmicker, Patrick Müller, Melanie Schwefel, Notger G. Müller

Abstract

Decision-making has a high practical relevance for daily performance. Its relation to other cognitive abilities such as executive control and memory is not fully understood. Here we asked whether training of either attentional filtering or memory storage would influence decision-making as indexed by repetitive assessments of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). The IGT was developed to assess and simulate real-life decision-making (Bechara et al., 2005). In this task, participants gain or lose money by developing advantageous or disadvantageous decision strategies. On five consecutive days we trained 29 healthy young adults (20-30 years) either in working memory (WM) storage or attentional filtering and measured their IGT scores after each training session. During memory training (MT) subjects performed a computerized delayed match-to-sample task where two displays of bars were presented in succession. During filter training (FT) participants had to indicate whether two simultaneously presented displays of bars matched or not. Whereas in MT the relevant target stimuli stood alone, in FT the targets were embedded within irrelevant distractors (bars in a different color). All subjects within each group improved their performance in the trained cognitive task. For the IGT, we observed an increase over time in the amount of money gained in the FT group only. Decision-making seems to be influenced more by training to filter out irrelevant distractors than by training to store items in WM. Selective attention could be responsible for the previously noted relationship between IGT performance and WM and is therefore more important for enhancing efficiency in decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 40%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Decision Sciences 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,090,927
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,538
of 7,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,070
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#47
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 309,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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 74% of its contemporaries.