↓ Skip to main content

Sequential Modulation of Cue Use in the Task Switching Paradigm

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Sequential Modulation of Cue Use in the Task Switching Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Wendt, Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez, Renate Reisenauer, Thomas Jacobsen, Gesine Dreisbach

Abstract

In task switching studies, pre-cuing of the upcoming task improves performance, indicating preparatory activation of the upcoming task-set, and/or inhibition of the previous task-set. To further investigate cue-based task preparation, the authors presented both valid and invalid task cues in a task switching experiment involving three tasks. Consistent with previous findings, a validity effect in terms of higher reaction times on invalidly compared to validly cued tasks was obtained. However, this validity effect was reduced following invalidly cued trials, suggesting dynamic adjustment in terms of decreased cue-based preparation after being misled. Performance was particularly impaired when the current task was the one that was invalidly cued on the preceding trial. This finding may reflect either particular reluctance to prepare or persisting inhibition of the erroneously prepared task-set from the pre-trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Professor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 66%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 17%
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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,176
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.