↓ Skip to main content

Using Decision Models to Enhance Investigations of Individual Differences in Cognitive Neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Using Decision Models to Enhance Investigations of Individual Differences in Cognitive Neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corey N. White, Ryan A. Curl, Jennifer F. Sloane

Abstract

There is great interest in relating individual differences in cognitive processing to activation of neural systems. The general process involves relating measures of task performance like reaction times or accuracy to brain activity to identify individual differences in neural processing. One limitation of this approach is that measures like reaction times can be affected by multiple components of processing. For instance, some individuals might have higher accuracy in a memory task because they respond more cautiously, not because they have better memory. Computational models of decision making, like the drift-diffusion model and the linear ballistic accumulator model, provide a potential solution to this problem. They can be fitted to data from individual participants to disentangle the effects of the different processes driving behavior. In this sense the models can provide cleaner measures of the processes of interest, and enhance our understanding of how neural activity varies across individuals or populations. The advantages of this model-based approach to investigating individual differences in neural activity are discussed with recent examples of how this method can improve our understanding of the brain-behavior relationship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 26%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 38%
Neuroscience 14 22%
Computer Science 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,130,754
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,036
of 31,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,481
of 403,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#147
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 403,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.