↓ Skip to main content

The focus of attention in working memory—from metaphors to mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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 focus of attention in working memory—from metaphors to mechanisms
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00673
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Oberauer

Abstract

Many verbal theories describe working memory (WM) in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers. These metaphors are often useful but can also be misleading. This article contrasts the verbal version of the author's three-embedded-component theory with a computational implementation of the theory. The analysis focuses on phenomena that have been attributed to the focus of attention in WM. The verbal theory characterizes the focus of attention by a container metaphor, which gives rise to questions such as: how many items fit into the focus? The computational model explains the same phenomena mechanistically through a combination of strengthened bindings between items and their retrieval cues, and priming of these cues. The author applies the computational model to three findings that have been used to argue about how many items can be held in the focus of attention (Oberauer and Bialkova, 2009; Gilchrist and Cowan, 2011; Oberauer and Bialkova, 2011). The modeling results imply a new interpretation of those findings: The different patterns of results across those studies don't imply different capacity estimates for the focus of attention; they rather reflect to what extent retrieval from WM is parallel or serial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Sweden 3 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 166 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 23%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 23 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 102 57%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Linguistics 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 32 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#8,961,421
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,590
of 7,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,885
of 294,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#457
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 294,702 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 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.