↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Cognitive Action Control Using Eye-Movement Analysis: An Oculomotor Adaptation of the Simon Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Evaluating Cognitive Action Control Using Eye-Movement Analysis: An Oculomotor Adaptation of the Simon Task
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Duprez, Jean-François Houvenaghel, Florian Naudet, Thibaut Dondaine, Manon Auffret, Gabriel Robert, Dominique Drapier, Soizic Argaud, Marc Vérin, Paul Sauleau

Abstract

Cognitive action control has been extensively studied using conflict tasks such as the Simon task. In most recent studies, this process has been investigated in the light of the dual route hypothesis and more specifically of the activation-suppression model using distributional analyses. Some authors have suggested that cognitive action control assessment is not specific to response modes. In this study we adapted the Simon task, using oculomotor responses instead of manual responses, in order to evaluate whether the resolution of conflict induced by a two-dimensional stimulus yielded similar results to what is usually reported in tasks with manual responses. Results obtained from 43 young healthy participants revealed the typical congruence effect, with longer reaction times (RT) and lesser accuracy in the incongruent condition. Conditional accuracy functions (CAF) also revealed a higher proportion of fast errors in the incongruent condition and delta plots confirmed that conflict resolution was easier, as the time taken to respond increased. These results are very similar to what has been reported in the literature. Furthermore, our observations are in line with the assumptions of the activation-suppression model, in which automatic activation in conflict situations is captured in the fastest responses and selective inhibition of cognitive action control needs time to build up. Altogether, our results suggest that conflict resolution has core mechanisms whatever the response mode, manual or oculomotor. Using oculomotor responses in such tasks could be of interest when investigating cognitive action control in patients with severe motor disorders.

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 7 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Lecturer 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 36%
Neuroscience 8 19%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 24%
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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,806,420
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,849
of 7,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,092
of 298,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#59
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 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 7,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 298,624 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 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 62% of its contemporaries.