↓ Skip to main content

Temporal Distinctiveness in Task Switching: Assessing the Mixture-Distribution Assumption

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Temporal Distinctiveness in Task Switching: Assessing the Mixture-Distribution Assumption
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00251
Pubmed ID
Authors

James A. Grange

Abstract

In task switching, increasing the response-cue interval has been shown to reduce the switch cost. This has been attributed to a time-based decay process influencing the activation of memory representations of tasks (task-sets). Recently, an alternative account based on interference rather than decay has been successfully applied to this data (Horoufchin et al., 2011a). In this account, variation of the RCI is thought to influence the temporal distinctiveness (TD) of episodic traces in memory, thus affecting their retrieval probability. This can affect performance as retrieval probability influences response time: If retrieval succeeds, responding is fast due to positive priming; if retrieval fails, responding is slow, due to having to perform the task via a slow algorithmic process. This account-and a recent formal model (Grange and Cross, 2015)-makes the strong prediction that all RTs are a mixture of one of two processes: a fast process when retrieval succeeds, and a slow process when retrieval fails. The present paper assesses the evidence for this mixture-distribution assumption in TD data. In a first section, statistical evidence for mixture-distributions is found using the fixed-point property test. In a second section, a mathematical process model with mixture-distributions at its core is fitted to the response time distribution data. Both approaches provide good evidence in support of the mixture-distribution assumption, and thus support temporal distinctiveness accounts of the data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 60%
Computer Science 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,310,658
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,156
of 29,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,335
of 298,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#445
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,874 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.