↓ Skip to main content

Does attentional selectivity in global/local processing improve discretely or gradually?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Does attentional selectivity in global/local processing improve discretely or gradually?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronald Hübner

Abstract

SOME RESULTS SUGGEST THAT ATTENTIONAL SELECTION IN GLOBAL/LOCAL PROCESSING OCCURS AT TWO STAGES: an early stage, where global and local information of a hierarchical stimulus is filtered or weighted according to the current goal, and a late stage, where the contents of the stimulus are bound to their respective level. Because it is assumed that binding improves attentional selectivity, accuracy should increase with response time. To see whether this prediction holds, a global/local experiment was conducted with hierarchical letters as stimuli, and where selection difficulty was varied by blocking vs. randomizing the target levels. The results show that accuracy indeed increased with response time, although to a lesser extent under randomized levels. Because an increasing accuracy is also compatible with a gradually improving selectivity, corresponding sequential sampling models were fit to the distributional data. The results show that a discretely improving attentional selectivity accounts better for the data. Moreover, the parameters of the corresponding model indicate that randomizing the target level impaired the efficiency of early selection as well as that of content-to-level binding.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 8%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 56%
Computer Science 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#20,219,902
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,919
of 29,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,758
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#168
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,601 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.