↓ Skip to main content

Location-Unbound Color-Shape Binding Representations in Visual Working Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Location-Unbound Color-Shape Binding Representations in Visual Working Memory
Published in
Psychological Science, December 2015
DOI 10.1177/0956797615616797
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Saiki

Abstract

The mechanism by which nonspatial features, such as color and shape, are bound in visual working memory, and the role of those features' location in their binding, remains unknown. In the current study, I modified a redundancy-gain paradigm to investigate these issues. A set of features was presented in a two-object memory display, followed by a single object probe. Participants judged whether the probe contained any features of the memory display, regardless of its location. Response time distributions revealed feature coactivation only when both features of a single object in the memory display appeared together in the probe, regardless of the response time benefit from the probe and memory objects sharing the same location. This finding suggests that a shared location is necessary in the formation of bound representations but unnecessary in their maintenance. Electroencephalography data showed that amplitude modulations reflecting location-unbound feature coactivation were different from those reflecting the location-sharing benefit, consistent with the behavioral finding that feature-location binding is unnecessary in the maintenance of color-shape binding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 99 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 22%
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 54%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 24 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,642,399
of 26,522,687 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#3,517
of 4,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,193
of 402,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#39
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,522,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 86.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 402,479 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.