↓ Skip to main content

How Prediction Errors Shape Perception, Attention, and Motivation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
338 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
899 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
How Prediction Errors Shape Perception, Attention, and Motivation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00548
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanneke E. M. den Ouden, Peter Kok, Floris P. de Lange

Abstract

Prediction errors (PE) are a central notion in theoretical models of reinforcement learning, perceptual inference, decision-making and cognition, and prediction error signals have been reported across a wide range of brain regions and experimental paradigms. Here, we will make an attempt to see the forest for the trees and consider the commonalities and differences of reported PE signals in light of recent suggestions that the computation of PE forms a fundamental mode of brain function. We discuss where different types of PE are encoded, how they are generated, and the different functional roles they fulfill. We suggest that while encoding of PE is a common computation across brain regions, the content and function of these error signals can be very different and are determined by the afferent and efferent connections within the neural circuitry in which they arise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 899 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 1%
Germany 6 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 858 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 231 26%
Student > Master 131 15%
Researcher 126 14%
Student > Bachelor 88 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 5%
Other 138 15%
Unknown 142 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 315 35%
Neuroscience 164 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 7%
Computer Science 36 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 3%
Other 116 13%
Unknown 181 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,563,604
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,209
of 34,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,479
of 255,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#59
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 255,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.