↓ Skip to main content

Compound Stimulus Presentation Does Not Deepen Extinction in Human Causal Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Compound Stimulus Presentation Does Not Deepen Extinction in Human Causal Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oren Griffiths, Nathan Holmes, R. Fred Westbrook

Abstract

Models of associative learning have proposed that cue-outcome learning critically depends on the degree of prediction error encountered during training. Two experiments examined the role of error-driven extinction learning in a human causal learning task. Target cues underwent extinction in the presence of additional cues, which differed in the degree to which they predicted the outcome, thereby manipulating outcome expectancy and, in the absence of any change in reinforcement, prediction error. These prediction error manipulations have each been shown to modulate extinction learning in aversive conditioning studies. While both manipulations resulted in increased prediction error during training, neither enhanced extinction in the present human learning task (one manipulation resulted in less extinction at test). The results are discussed with reference to the types of associations that are regulated by prediction error, the types of error terms involved in their regulation, and how these interact with parameters involved in training.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 48%
Computer Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#16,398,687
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,545
of 35,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,960
of 430,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#311
of 465 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 430,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 465 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.