↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Divided Attention at Retrieval on Conceptual Implicit Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Effects of Divided Attention at Retrieval on Conceptual Implicit Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew W Prull, Courtney Lawless, Helen M Marshall, Annabella T K Sherman

Abstract

This study investigated whether conceptual implicit memory is sensitive to process-specific interference at the time of retrieval. Participants performed the implicit memory test of category exemplar generation (CEG; Experiments 1 and 3), or the matched explicit memory test of category-cued recall (Experiment 2), both of which are conceptually driven memory tasks, under one of two divided attention (DA) conditions in which participants simultaneously performed a distracting task. The distracting task was either syllable judgments (dissimilar processes), or semantic judgments (similar processes) on unrelated words. Compared to full attention (FA) in which no distracting task was performed, DA had no effect on CEG priming overall, but reduced category-cued recall similarly regardless of distractor task. Analyses of distractor task performance also revealed differences between implicit and explicit memory retrieval. The evidence suggests that, whereas explicit memory retrieval requires attentional resources and is disrupted by semantic and phonological distracting tasks, conceptual implicit memory is automatic and unaffected even when distractor and memory tasks involve similar processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 43%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 September 2021.
All research outputs
#13,760,931
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,903
of 29,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,337
of 394,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#260
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 394,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.