↓ Skip to main content

More than Attentional Tuning – Investigating the Mechanisms Underlying Practice Gains and Preparation in Task Switching

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
More than Attentional Tuning – Investigating the Mechanisms Underlying Practice Gains and Preparation in Task Switching
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00682
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Wendt, Stina Klein, Tilo Strobach

Abstract

In task switching, participants perform trials of task repetitions (i.e., the same task is executed in consecutive trials) and task switches (i.e., different tasks are executed in consecutive trials) and the longer reaction times in switch trials in comparison to these times in repetition trials are referred to as switch costs. These costs are reduced by lengthening of an interval following a cue that indicates the upcoming task; this effect demonstrated effective task preparation. To investigate the role of task switching practice for these preparation effects and task switch costs, we applied a task switching paradigm, involving two digit classification tasks, in six successive practice sessions and varied the length of the preparation interval. To further examine practice-related processing alterations on preparation, particularly concerning the focusing of visual attention and control of response competition, we added an Eriksen flanker task in the initial and the final session. Unlike the two digit tasks, which were always validly cued, the Eriksen flanker task occurred randomly after a cue that indicated one of the other two tasks (i.e., invalid task cuing). The results showed that, in the initial session, task switch costs for the digit tasks were reduced after a long preparation interval but this reduction disappeared after practice. This finding is consistent with the assumption of practice-related enhancement of preparation efficiency concerning non-perceptual task processes. Flanker interference was larger after preparation for a task repetition than for a task switch and (regarding error rates) larger in the final than in the initial session. Possible mechanisms underlying these attentional modulations evoked by task-sequence-dependent preparation and by task switching practice are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Materials Science 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,016,768
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,801
of 30,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,810
of 310,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#197
of 600 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,120 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 310,733 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 600 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.