↓ Skip to main content

When the Ignored Gets Bound: Sequential Effects in the Flanker Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
When the Ignored Gets Bound: Sequential Effects in the Flanker Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00552
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eddy J. Davelaar

Abstract

Recent research on attentional control processes in the Eriksen flanker task has focused on the so-called congruency sequence effect a.k.a. the Gratton effect, which is the observation of a smaller flanker interference effect after incongruent than after congruent trials. There is growing support for the view that in this paradigm, the congruency sequence effect is due to repetition of the target or response across trials. Here, results from two experiments are presented that separate the contributions of target, flanker, and response repetition. The results suggest that neither response repetition alone nor conflict is necessary to produce the effect. Instead, the data reveal that only flanker repetition is sufficient to produce congruency sequence effects. In other words, information that is associated with a response irrespective whether it is relevant for the current trial is bound to response representations. An account is presented in which the fleeting event files are the activated part of the task set in which flankers, targets, and response representations are associatively linked and updated through conflict-modulated reinforcement learning.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 22%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 42%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,036,741
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,964
of 29,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,049
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#210
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 280,671 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.