↓ Skip to main content

Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00583
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuki Miyazaki

Abstract

Video monitoring modifies the task performance of those who are being monitored. The current study aims to prevent rare target-detection failures during visual search through the use of video monitoring. Targets are sometimes missed when their prevalence during visual search is extremely low (e.g., in airport baggage screenings). Participants performed a visual search in which they were required to discern the presence of a tool in the midst of other objects. The participants were monitored via video cameras as they performed the task in one session (the videotaped condition), and they performed the same task in another session without being monitored (the non-videotaped condition). The results showed that fewer miss errors occurred in the videotaped condition, regardless of target prevalence. It appears that the decrease in misses in the video monitoring condition resulted from a shift in criterion location. Video monitoring is considered useful in inducing accurate scanning. It is possible that the potential for evaluation involved in being observed motivates the participants to perform well and is related to the shift in criterion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Student > Bachelor 5 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 74%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,358,011
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,631
of 29,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,480
of 264,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#235
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 264,554 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 517 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 54% of its contemporaries.