↓ Skip to main content

Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
28 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
986 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
Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah R. Snyder, Akira Miyake, Benjamin L. Hankin

Abstract

Executive function (EF) is essential for successfully navigating nearly all of our daily activities. Of critical importance for clinical psychological science, EF impairments are associated with most forms of psychopathology. However, despite the proliferation of research on EF in clinical populations, with notable exceptions clinical and cognitive approaches to EF have remained largely independent, leading to failures to apply theoretical and methodological advances in one field to the other field and hindering progress. First, we review the current state of knowledge of EF impairments associated with psychopathology and limitations to the previous research in light of recent advances in understanding and measuring EF. Next, we offer concrete suggestions for improving EF assessment. Last, we suggest future directions, including integrating modern models of EF with state of the art, hierarchical models of dimensional psychopathology as well as translational implications of EF-informed research on clinical science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 986 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 968 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 204 21%
Student > Master 155 16%
Researcher 112 11%
Student > Bachelor 88 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 74 8%
Other 151 15%
Unknown 202 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 490 50%
Neuroscience 76 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 5%
Social Sciences 24 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 2%
Other 72 7%
Unknown 254 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,338,431
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,770
of 34,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,690
of 281,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#58
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 281,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 478 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.