↓ Skip to main content

Conflict adaptation is predicted by the cognitive, but not the affective alexithymia dimension

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Conflict adaptation is predicted by the cognitive, but not the affective alexithymia dimension
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00768
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michiel de Galan, Roberta Sellaro, Lorenza S. Colzato, Bernhard Hommel

Abstract

Stimulus-induced response conflict (e.g., in Simon or Stroop tasks) is often reduced after conflict trials-the Gratton effect. It is generally assumed that this effect is due to a strengthening of the representation of the current intention or goal, which in turn increases the degree of stimulus and/or response control. Recent evidence suggests that the motivational signal driving the Gratton effect might be affective in nature. If so, individual differences in either the strength of affective signals and/or the ability to interpret such signals might explain individual differences in cognitive-control adjustments as reflected in the Gratton effect. We tested this hypothesis by relating individual sizes of the Gratton effect in a Simon task to scores on the affective and the cognitive dimension of the Bermond/Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)-which we assumed to assess individual differences in affective-signal strength and ability to interpret affective signals, respectively. Results show that the cognitive, but not the affective dimension predicted control adjustment, while the accuracy of heartbeat detection was only (and only weakly) related to online control. This suggests that the motivation to fine-tune one's cognitive-control operations is mediated by, and may depend on one's ability to interpret one's own affective signals.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 68%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 5 9%
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 04 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,623,520
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,615
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,477
of 230,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#162
of 374 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 230,265 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 374 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 56% of its contemporaries.