↓ Skip to main content

Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13423-016-1012-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary J. Don, Micah B. Goldwater, A. Ross Otto, Evan J. Livesey

Abstract

Numerous tasks in learning and cognition have demonstrated differences in response patterns that may reflect the operation of two distinct systems. For example, causal and reinforcement learning tasks each show responding that considers abstract structure as well as responding based on simple associations. Nevertheless, there has been little attempt to verify whether these tasks are measuring related processes. The current study therefore investigated the relationship between rule- and feature-based generalization in a causal learning task, and model-based and model-free responding in a reinforcement learning task, including cognitive reflection as a predictor of individual tendencies to use controlled, deliberative processes in these tasks. We found that the use of rule-based generalization in a patterning task was a significant predictor of model-based, but not model-free, choice. Individual differences in cognitive reflection were significantly correlated with performance in both tasks, although this did not predict variation in model-based choice independently of rule-based generalization. Thus, although there is evidence of stable individual differences in the use of higher order processes across tasks, there may also be differences in mechanisms that these tasks reveal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 57%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,299,027
of 12,445,189 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#664
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,052
of 273,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#33
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,445,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 273,434 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 59% of its contemporaries.