↓ Skip to main content

What We Talk about When We Talk about Unconscious Processing – A Plea for Best Practices

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
What We Talk about When We Talk about Unconscious Processing – A Plea for Best Practices
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00835
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Rothkirch, Guido Hesselmann

Abstract

In this perspective article, we first outline the large diversity of methods, measures, statistical analyses, and concepts in the field of the experimental study of unconscious processing. We then suggest that this diversity implies that comparisons between different studies on unconscious processing are fairly limited, especially when stimulus awareness has been assessed in different ways. Furthermore, we argue that flexible choices of methods and measures will inevitably lead to an overestimation of unconscious processes. In the concluding paragraph, we briefly present solutions and strategies for future research. We make a plea for the introduction of "best practices," similar to previous attempts to constitute practicing standards for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG).

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 profiles of 15 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 34%
Neuroscience 15 17%
Philosophy 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 31 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,914,384
of 26,442,002 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,328
of 35,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,112
of 331,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#189
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,442,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 331,848 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 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 68% of its contemporaries.