↓ Skip to main content

The role of consciousness in the phonological loop: hidden in plain sight

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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The role of consciousness in the phonological loop: hidden in plain sight
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00496
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley R. Buchsbaum

Abstract

We know from everyday experience that when we need to keep a small amount of verbal information "in mind" for a short period, an effective cognitive strategy is to silently rehearse the words. This basic cognitive strategy has been elegantly codified in Baddeley and colleagues model of verbal working memory, the phonological loop. Here we explore how the intuitive appeal of the phonological loop is grounded in the phenomenological experience of subvocal rehearsal as consisting of an interaction between an "inner voice" and an "inner ear." We focus particularly on how our intuitions about the phenomenological experience of "inner speech" might constrain or otherwise inform the functional architecture of information processing models of verbal working memory such as the phonological loop; and how, indeed, how ideas about consciousness may offer alternative explanations for the dual nature of inner speech in verbal working memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
France 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 76 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 35%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Linguistics 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,504,049
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,595
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,927
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#314
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 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 well, scoring higher than 77% 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 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.