↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Verbal Instruction and Visual Guidance in Training Pattern Recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
The Role of Verbal Instruction and Visual Guidance in Training Pattern Recognition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01473
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie S. North, Ed Hope, A. Mark Williams

Abstract

We used a novel approach to examine whether it is possible to improve the perceptual-cognitive skill of pattern recognition using a video-based training intervention. Moreover, we investigated whether any improvements in pattern recognition transfer to an improved ability to make anticipation judgments. Finally, we compared the relative effectiveness of verbal and visual guidance interventions compared to a group that merely viewed the same sequences without any intervention and a control group that only completed pre- and post-tests. We found a significant effect for time of testing. Participants were more sensitive in their ability to perceive patterns and distinguish between novel and familiar sequences at post- compared to pre-test. However, this improvement was not influenced by the nature of the intervention, despite some trends in the data. An analysis of anticipation accuracy showed no change from pre- to post-test following the pattern recognition training intervention, suggesting that the link between pattern perception and anticipation may not be strong. We present a series of recommendations for scientists and practitioners when employing training methods to improve pattern recognition and anticipation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Professor 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 22 29%
Psychology 10 13%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,381,177
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,655
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,515
of 315,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#138
of 602 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 315,613 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 602 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.