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 |
The role of visual awareness for conflict adaptation in the masked priming task: comparing block-wise adaptation with trial-by-trial adaptation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01347 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kunihiro Hasegawa, Shin’ya Takahashi |
| Abstract |
This study investigated the role of participants' visual awareness in the block-wise and the trial-by-trial adaptations. We employed a subliminal response compatibility task in which a prime arrow was briefly presented before the target arrow, and the participants were requested to indicate the direction of the target arrow. The direction of the prime and direction of the target were either the same (compatible trial) or different (incompatible trial). To examine block-wise adaptation, two blocks were conducted, i.e., the Neutral block (50% compatible and 50% incompatible trials) and the Incompatible block (10% compatible and 90% incompatible trials). The results showed the existence of the block-wise adaptation without participants' visual awareness. The compatibility effect on both response time and error rate (ER) was smaller in the Incompatible block than in the Neutral block. Moreover, a separate data analysis based on the preceding trial type revealed that the trial-by-trial adaptation of cognitive control was observed only in the ER. These results suggest the different role of visual awareness in the block-wise and trial-by-trial adaptations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 72% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
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 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,384,336
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,065
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,926
of 361,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#312
of 359 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 361,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 359 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.