↓ Skip to main content

An architecturally constrained model of random number generation and its application to modeling the effect of generation rate

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
An architecturally constrained model of random number generation and its application to modeling the effect of generation rate
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Sexton, Richard P. Cooper

Abstract

Random number generation (RNG) is a complex cognitive task for human subjects, requiring deliberative control to avoid production of habitual, stereotyped sequences. Under various manipulations (e.g., speeded responding, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or neurological damage) the performance of human subjects deteriorates, as reflected in a number of qualitatively distinct, dissociable biases. For example, the intrusion of stereotyped behavior (e.g., counting) increases at faster rates of generation. Theoretical accounts of the task postulate that it requires the integrated operation of multiple, computationally heterogeneous cognitive control ("executive") processes. We present a computational model of RNG, within the framework of a novel, neuropsychologically-inspired cognitive architecture, ESPro. Manipulating the rate of sequence generation in the model reproduced a number of key effects observed in empirical studies, including increasing sequence stereotypy at faster rates. Within the model, this was due to time limitations on the interaction of supervisory control processes, namely, task setting, proposal of responses, monitoring, and response inhibition. The model thus supports the fractionation of executive function into multiple, computationally heterogeneous processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 22%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 49%
Neuroscience 7 19%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 22%
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 17 July 2019.
All research outputs
#15,302,478
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,585
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,063
of 227,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#301
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 227,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.