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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Long-term memory-based control of attention in multi-step tasks requires working memory: evidence from domain-specific interference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00408 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca M. Foerster, Elena Carbone, Werner X. Schneider |
| Abstract |
Evidence for long-term memory (LTM)-based control of attention has been found during the execution of highly practiced multi-step tasks. However, does LTM directly control for attention or are working memory (WM) processes involved? In the present study, this question was investigated with a dual-task paradigm. Participants executed either a highly practiced visuospatial sensorimotor task (speed stacking) or a verbal task (high-speed poem reciting), while maintaining visuospatial or verbal information in WM. Results revealed unidirectional and domain-specific interference. Neither speed stacking nor high-speed poem reciting was influenced by WM retention. Stacking disrupted the retention of visuospatial locations, but did not modify memory performance of verbal material (letters). Reciting reduced the retention of verbal material substantially whereas it affected the memory performance of visuospatial locations to a smaller degree. We suggest that the selection of task-relevant information from LTM for the execution of overlearned multi-step tasks recruits domain-specific WM. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 29% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 43% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
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 09 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,944,189
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#25,261
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,043
of 228,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#284
of 321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 228,890 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 321 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.