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 |
Individual Difference Factors in the Learning and Transfer of Patterning Discriminations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01262 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisa Maes, Elias Vanderoost, Rudi D'Hooge, Jan De Houwer, Tom Beckers |
| Abstract |
In an associative patterning task, some people seem to focus more on learning an overarching rule, whereas others seem to focus on acquiring specific relations between the stimuli and outcomes involved. Building on earlier work, we further investigated which cognitive factors are involved in feature- vs. rule-based learning and generalization. To this end, we measured participants' tendency to generalize according to the rule of opposites after training on negative and positive patterning problems (i.e., A+/B+/AB- and C-/D-/CD+), their tendency to attend to global aspects or local details of stimuli, their systemizing disposition and their score on the Raven intelligence test. Our results suggest that while intelligence might have some influence on patterning learning and generalization, visual processing style and systemizing disposition do not. We discuss our findings in the light of previous observations on patterning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,731,722
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,942
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,758
of 322,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#245
of 564 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 322,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 564 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 56% of its contemporaries.