↓ Skip to main content

Preferred, but not objective temperature predicts working memory depletion

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 978)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Preferred, but not objective temperature predicts working memory depletion
Published in
Psychological Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00426-014-0558-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberta Sellaro, Bernhard Hommel, Meriem Manaï, Lorenza S. Colzato

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between objective temperature and subjective temperature preferences in predicting performance in simple and complex cognitive tasks. We assessed the impact of room temperature (warm and cold) on the ability to "update" (and monitor) working memory (WM) representations in two groups of participants, who differed in their subjective temperature preferences (warm-preferred vs. cold-preferred). Participants performed an N-back task in which conditions (1-back and 2-back) differ in their WM load and cognitive demands. Results showed that the preferred, but not the objective temperature predicts WM performance in the more resource-demanding (the 2-back) condition. We propose that subjective preferences are more reliable predictors of performance than objective temperature and that performing under the preferred temperature may counteract "ego-depletion" (i.e., reduced self-control after an exhausting cognitive task) when substantial cognitive control is required. Our findings do not only favor a cognitive approach over the environmental/physical approaches dominating the research on cognition-environment interactions, but they also have important, straightforward practical implications for the design of workplaces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 49 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 46%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Engineering 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 04 December 2019.
All research outputs
#983,522
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#35
of 978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,229
of 224,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 224,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.