↓ Skip to main content

The Importance of Being Relevant

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The Importance of Being Relevant
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Snehlata Jaswal

Abstract

This review aims at an understanding of the binding process by synthesizing the extant perspectives regarding binding. It begins with a consideration of the biological explanations of binding, viz., conjunctive coding, synchrony, and reentrant mechanisms. Thereafter binding is reviewed as a psychological process guided by top-down signals. The stages and types of binding proposed by various researchers are discussed in this section. The next section introduces Working Memory (WM) as the executive directing the top-down signals. After that it is described how WM works by selecting relevant sensory input, followed by a detailed consideration of the debate regarding objects vs. features with the conclusion that relevance is the key factor determining what is processed. The next section considers other factors affecting the selection of relevant input. Then, we shift focus to describe what happens to irrelevant input - whether it is discarded at the outset or is gradually inhibited, and whether inhibition is a perceptual or post-perceptual process. The concluding section describes the process of binding as currently understood on the basis of the literature included in the review. To summarize, it appears that initially the "object" is conceptualized as an instantaneous bundle of all features. However, only relevant features of stimuli are gradually integrated to form a stable representation of the object. Concomitantly, irrelevant features are removed from the object representations. Empirical evidence suggests that the inhibition of irrelevant features occurs over time and is presumably a process within WM.

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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 6%
France 1 2%
Israel 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 55 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 9 14%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 37%
Computer Science 7 11%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Engineering 4 6%
Linguistics 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 March 2013.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,963
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,230
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#289
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.