The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
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 |
Adaptive Strategies for the Elderly in Inhibiting Irrelevant and Conflict No-Go Trials while Performing the Go/No-Go Task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00243 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shulan Hsieh, Mengyao Wu, Chien-Hui Tang |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to differentiate whether or not older adults are more prone to distraction or conflict, as induced by irrelevant and conflict no-go stimuli (irNOGO and cfNOGO), respectively. This study also aimed to determine whether or not older adults would devote more effort to withholding a no-go trial in the higher-control demand condition (20% no-go trials' probability) as compared to the lower-control demand condition (50 and 80% no-go trials' probability). A total of 96 individuals were recruited, and each of the three no-go trials' probability conditions included 32 participants (16 younger adults and 16 older adults). Both behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) data were measured. The behavioral results showed that the older adults performed more poorly than the younger adults for the go trials, as reflected by slower reaction times (RTs) and higher numbers of omission errors in the go trials. In contrast, in the no-go trials, the older adults counter-intuitively exhibited similar behavioral performance (i.e., equivalent commission errors) as compared to the younger adults. The ERP data further showed that the older adults (but not the younger adults) exhibited larger P3 peak amplitudes for the irNOGO than cfNOGO trials. Yet, on the other hand, the older adults performed more poorly (i.e., had more commission errors) in the cfNOGO than irNOGO trials. These results seem to suggest that the older adults recruited more control processes in order to conquer the commitment of responses in the no-go trials, especially in the irNOGO trials. This age-related compensatory response of recruiting more control processes was specifically seen in the 20% no-go trial probability condition. This study therefore provides a deeper understanding into how older adults adopt strategies for performing the go/no-go task such as devoting more control processes to inhibiting the irNOGO trials compared to the cfNOGO trials in order to cope with their deficient inhibition ability. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,300,248
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,300
of 4,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,512
of 393,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#57
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.