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 |
Strategy Changes After Errors Improve Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02051 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liesbet Van der Borght, Charlotte Desmet, Wim Notebaert |
| Abstract |
The observation that performance does not improve following errors contradicts the traditional view on error monitoring (Fiehler et al., 2005; Núñez Castellar et al., 2010; Notebaert and Verguts, 2011). However, recent findings suggest that typical laboratory tasks provided us with a narrow window on error monitoring (Jentzsch and Dudschig, 2009; Desmet et al., 2012). In this study we investigated strategy-use after errors in a mental arithmetic task. In line with our hypothesis, this more complex task did show increased performance after errors. More specifically, switching to a different strategy after an error resulted in improved performance, while repeating the same strategy resulted in worse performance. These results show that in more ecological valid tasks, post-error behavioral improvement can be observed. |
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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 52% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
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 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,433,196
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,189
of 29,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,488
of 395,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#370
of 444 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 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 29,825 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 395,133 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 444 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.