↓ Skip to main content

Does long-term object priming depend on the explicit detection of object identity at encoding?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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 long-term object priming depend on the explicit detection of object identity at encoding?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00270
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A. Gomes, Andrew Mayes

Abstract

It is currently unclear whether objects have to be explicitly identified at encoding for reliable behavioral long-term object priming to occur. We conducted two experiments that investigated long-term object and non-object priming using a selective-attention encoding manipulation that reduces explicit object identification. In Experiment 1, participants either counted dots flashed within an object picture (shallow encoding) or engaged in an animacy task (deep encoding) at study, whereas, at test, they performed an object-decision task. Priming, as measured by reaction times (RTs), was observed for both types of encoding, and was of equivalent magnitude. In Experiment 2, non-object priming (faster RTs for studied relative to unstudied non-objects) was also obtained under the same selective-attention encoding manipulation as in Experiment 1, and the magnitude of the priming effect was equivalent between experiments. In contrast, we observed a linear decrement in recognition memory accuracy across conditions (deep encoding of Experiment 1 > shallow encoding Experiment 1 > shallow encoding of Experiment 2), suggesting that priming was not contaminated by explicit memory strategies. We argue that our results are more consistent with the identification/production framework than the perceptual/conceptual distinction, and we conclude that priming of pictures largely ignored at encoding can be subserved by the automatic retrieval of two types of instances: one at the motor level and another at an object-decision level.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 17 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 68%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 11%
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 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,831,622
of 24,749,767 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,689
of 33,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,400
of 268,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 459 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,749,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. 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 268,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 459 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.