↓ Skip to main content

Memory bias in the temporal bisection point

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 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
Memory bias in the temporal bisection point
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2015.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua M. Levy, Vijay M. K. Namboodiri, Marshall G. Hussain Shuler

Abstract

The ability to time intervals confers organisms, including humans, with many remarkable capabilities. A common method for studying interval timing is classification, in which a subject must indicate whether a given probe duration is nearer a previously learned short or long reference interval. This task is designed to reveal the probe duration that is equally likely to be labeled as short or long, known as the temporal bisection point. Studies have found that this bisection point is influenced by a variety of factors including the ratio of the target intervals, the spacing of the probe durations, the modalities of the stimuli, the attentional load, and the inter-trial duration. While several of these factors are thought to be mediated by memory effects, the prototypical classification task affords no opportunity to measure these memory effects directly. Here, we present a novel bisection task, termed the "Bisection by Classification and Production" (BiCaP) task, in which classification trials are interleaved with trials in which subjects must produce either the short or long referents or their midpoint. Using this method, we found a significant correlation between the means of the remembered referents and the bisection points for both classification and production trials. We then cross-validated the bisection points for production and classification trials by showing that they were not statistically differentiable. In addition to these population-level effects, we found within-subject evidence for co-variation across a session between the production bisection points and the means of the remembered referents. Finally, by using two sets of referent durations, we showed that only memory bias-corrected measures were consistent with a previously reported effect in which the ratio of the referents affects the location of the bisection point. These results suggest that memory effects should be considered in temporal tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
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 %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 31%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 31%
Neuroscience 9 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Linguistics 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,101,728
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#795
of 899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,379
of 267,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 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 899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. 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 267,315 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 11 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.