The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 |
Joint perceptual decision-making: a case study in explanatory pluralism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00330 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Drew H. Abney, Rick Dale, Jeff Yoshimi, Chris T. Kello, Kristian Tylén, Riccardo Fusaroli |
| Abstract |
Traditionally different approaches to the study of cognition have been viewed as competing explanatory frameworks. An alternative view, explanatory pluralism, regards different approaches to the study of cognition as complementary ways of studying the same phenomenon, at specific temporal and spatial scales, using appropriate methodological tools. Explanatory pluralism has been often described abstractly, but has rarely been applied to concrete cases. We present a case study of explanatory pluralism. We discuss three separate ways of studying the same phenomenon: a perceptual decision-making task (Bahrami et al., 2010), where pairs of subjects share information to jointly individuate an oddball stimulus among a set of distractors. Each approach analyzed the same corpus but targeted different units of analysis at different levels of description: decision-making at the behavioral level, confidence sharing at the linguistic level, and acoustic energy at the physical level. We discuss the utility of explanatory pluralism for describing this complex, multiscale phenomenon, show ways in which this case study sheds new light on the concept of pluralism, and highlight good practices to critically assess and complement approaches. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 3 | 30% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 35% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 February 2023.
All research outputs
#5,988,564
of 24,583,586 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,515
of 33,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,715
of 232,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#106
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,583,586 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 232,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 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 66% of its contemporaries.