↓ Skip to main content

Lose-Shift Responding in Humans Is Promoted by Increased Cognitive Load

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Lose-Shift Responding in Humans Is Promoted by Increased Cognitive Load
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2018.00009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victorita E. Ivan, Parker J. Banks, Kris Goodfellow, Aaron J. Gruber

Abstract

The propensity of animals to shift choices immediately after unexpectedly poor reinforcement outcomes is a pervasive strategy across species and tasks. We report here on the memory supporting such lose-shift responding in humans, assessed using a binary choice task in which random responding is the optimal strategy. Participants exhibited little lose-shift responding when fully attending to the task, but this increased by 30%-40% in participants that performed with additional cognitive load that is known to tax executive systems. Lose-shift responding in the cognitively loaded adults persisted throughout the testing session, despite being a sub-optimal strategy, but was less likely as the time increased between reinforcement and the subsequent choice. Furthermore, children (5-9 years old) without load performed similarly to the cognitively loaded adults. This effect disappeared in older children aged 11-13 years old. These data provide evidence supporting our hypothesis that lose-shift responding is a default and reflexive strategy in the mammalian brain, likely mediated by a decaying memory trace, and is normally suppressed by executive systems. Reducing the efficacy of executive control by cognitive load (adults) or underdevelopment (children) increases its prevalence. It may therefore be an important component to consider when interpreting choice data, and may serve as an objective behavioral assay of executive function in humans that is easy to measure.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 25%
Neuroscience 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 27%
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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,468,008
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#758
of 858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,881
of 332,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. 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 332,633 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 13 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.