The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 |
Inducing Proactive Control Shifts in the AX-CPT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01822 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corentin Gonthier, Brooke N. Macnamara, Michael Chow, Andrew R. A. Conway, Todd S. Braver |
| Abstract |
The Dual Mechanisms of Control (DMC) account (Braver, 2012) proposes two distinct mechanisms of cognitive control, proactive and reactive. This account has been supported by a large number of studies using the AX-CPT paradigm that have demonstrated not only between-group differences, but also within-subjects variability in the use of the two control mechanisms. Yet there has been little investigation of task manipulations that can experimentally modulate the use of proactive control in healthy young adults; such manipulations could be useful to better understand the workings of cognitive control mechanisms. In the current study, a series of three experiments demonstrate how individuals can be systematically biased toward and away from the utilization of proactive control, via strategy training and no-go manipulations, respectively. These results provide increased support for the DMC framework, and provide a new basis from which to examine group-based differences and neural mechanisms underlying the two control modes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 194 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 43 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 92 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 10% |
| Linguistics | 5 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 51 | 26% |
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 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,073,001
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,088
of 34,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,704
of 415,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#176
of 416 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 415,852 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 416 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 57% of its contemporaries.