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.
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 |
Expertise and processing distorted structure in chess
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00825 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James C. Bartlett, Amy L. Boggan, Daniel C. Krawczyk |
| Abstract |
A classic finding in research on human expertise and knowledge is that of enhanced memory for stimuli in a domain of expertise as compared to either stimuli outside that domain, or within-domain stimuli that have been degraded or distorted in some way. However, we do not understand how experts process degradation or distortion of stimuli within the expert domain (e.g., a face with the eyes, nose, and mouth in the wrong positions, or a chessboard with pieces placed randomly). Focusing on the domain of chess, we present new fMRI evidence that when experts view such distorted/within-domain stimuli, they engage an active search for structure-a kind of exploratory chunking-that involves a component of a prefrontal-parietal network linked to consciousness, attention and working memory. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 53 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Engineering | 5 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,932,484
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,968
of 7,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,777
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#421
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 280,769 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 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 50% of its contemporaries.