↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting the learning curve (once again)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Revisiting the learning curve (once again)
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00982
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Glautier

Abstract

The vast majority of published work in the field of associative learning seeks to test the adequacy of various theoretical accounts of the learning process using average data. Of course, averaging hides important information, but individual departures from the average are usually designated "error" and largely ignored. However, from the perspective of an individual differences approach, this error is the data of interest; and when associative models are applied to individual learning curves the error is substantial. To some extent individual differences can be reasonably understood in terms of parametric variations of the underlying model. Unfortunately, in many cases, the data cannot be accomodated in this way and the applicability of the underlying model can be called into question. Indeed several authors have proposed alternatives to associative models because of the poor fits between data and associative model. In the current paper a novel associative approach to the analysis of individual learning curves is presented. The Memory Environment Cue Array Model (MECAM) is described and applied to two human predictive learning datasets. The MECAM is predicated on the assumption that participants do not parse the trial sequences to which they are exposed into independent episodes as is often assumed when learning curves are modeled. Instead, the MECAM assumes that learning and responding on a trial may also be influenced by the events of the previous trial. Incorporating non-local information the MECAM produced better approximations to individual learning curves than did the Rescorla-Wagner Model (RWM) suggesting that further exploration of the approach is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 13 19%
Professor 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,564,019
of 24,512,028 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,807
of 33,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,881
of 290,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#435
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,512,028 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 290,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 54% of its contemporaries.