↓ Skip to main content

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
252 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
381 Mendeley
Title
Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13423-017-1380-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michel Failing, Jan Theeuwes

Abstract

Visual attention enables us to selectively prioritize or suppress information in the environment. Prominent models concerned with the control of visual attention differentiate between goal-directed, top-down and stimulus-driven, bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. In the current review, we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that attentional selection does not need to be the result of top-down or bottom-up processing but, instead, is often driven by lingering biases due to the "history" of former attention deployments. This review mainly focuses on reward-based history effects; yet other types of history effects such as (intertrial) priming, statistical learning and affective conditioning are also discussed. We argue that evidence from behavioral, eye-movement and neuroimaging studies supports the idea that selection history modulates the topographical landscape of spatial "priority" maps, such that attention is biased toward locations having the highest activation on this map.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 381 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 19%
Student > Master 52 14%
Student > Bachelor 44 12%
Researcher 33 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 6%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 107 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 172 45%
Neuroscience 48 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Social Sciences 5 1%
Computer Science 5 1%
Other 30 8%
Unknown 116 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,248,212
of 26,096,076 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#814
of 2,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,069
of 335,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#13
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,096,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 335,102 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 63% of its contemporaries.