↓ Skip to main content

Focused attention vs. crossmodal signals paradigm: deriving predictions from the time-window-of-integration model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Focused attention vs. crossmodal signals paradigm: deriving predictions from the time-window-of-integration model
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2012.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans Colonius, Adele Diederich

Abstract

In the crossmodal signals paradigm (CSP) participants are instructed to respond to a set of stimuli from different modalities, presented more or less simultaneously, as soon as a stimulus from any modality has been detected. In the focused attention paradigm (FAP), on the other hand, responses should only be made to a stimulus from a pre-defined target modality and stimuli from non-target modalities should be ignored. Whichever paradigm is being applied, a typical result is that responses tend to be faster to crossmodal stimuli than to unimodal stimuli, a phenomenon often referred to as "crossmodal interaction." Here, we investigate predictions of the time-window-of-integration (TWIN) modeling framework previously proposed by the authors. It is shown that TWIN makes specific qualitative and quantitative predictions on how the two paradigms differ with respect to the probability of multisensory integration and the amount of response enhancement, including the effect of stimulus intensity ("inverse effectiveness"). Introducing a decision-theoretic framework for TWIN further allows comparing the two paradigms with respect to the predicted optimal time window size and its dependence on the prior probability that the crossmodal stimulus information refers to the same event. In order to test these predictions, experimental studies that systematically compare crossmodal effects under stimulus conditions that are identical except for the CSP-FAP instruction should be performed in the future.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Germany 2 5%
United Kingdom 2 5%
Hungary 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 34 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 28%
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 May 2013.
All research outputs
#15,272,611
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#595
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,253
of 244,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#56
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 244,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.