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.
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 |
Effects of informative and confirmatory feedback on brain activation during negative feedback processing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00378 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yeon-kyoung Woo, Juyeon Song, Yi Jiang, Catherine Cho, Mimi Bong, Sung-il Kim |
| Abstract |
The current study compared the effects of informative and confirmatory feedback on brain activation during negative feedback processing. For confirmatory feedback trials, participants were informed that they had failed the task, whereas informative feedback trials presented task relevant information along with the notification of their failure. Fourteen male undergraduates performed a series of spatial-perceptual tasks and received feedback while their brain activity was recorded. During confirmatory feedback trials, greater activations in the amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and the thalamus (including the habenular) were observed in response to incorrect responses. These results suggest that confirmatory feedback induces negative emotional reactions to failure. In contrast, informative feedback trials elicited greater activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) when participants experienced failure. Further psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis revealed a negative coupling between the DLPFC and the amygdala during informative feedback relative to confirmatory feedback trials. These findings suggest that providing task-relevant information could facilitate implicit down-regulation of negative emotions following failure. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 5 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,958,564
of 25,321,938 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,676
of 7,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,557
of 269,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#58
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,321,938 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 269,849 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 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 65% of its contemporaries.