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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavioral and Brain Functions, March 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1744-9081-4-13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yao-Chu Chiu, Ching-Hung Lin, Jong-Tsun Huang, Shuyeu Lin, Po-Lei Lee, Jen-Chuen Hsieh |
| Abstract |
The Somatic Marker Hypothesis suggests that normal subjects are "foreseeable" and ventromedial prefrontal patients are "myopic" in making decisions, as the behavior shown in the Iowa Gambling Task. The present study questions previous findings because of the existing confounding between long-term outcome (expected value, EV) and gain-loss frequency variables in the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). A newly and symmetrically designed gamble, namely the Soochow Gambling Task (SGT), with a high-contrast EV between bad (A, B) and good (C, D) decks, is conducted to clarify the issue about IGT confounding. Based on the prediction of EV (a basic assumption of IGT), participants should prefer to choose good decks C and D rather than bad decks A and B in SGT. In contrast, according to the prediction of gain-loss frequency, subjects should prefer the decks A and B because they possessed relatively the high-frequency gain. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 74 | 51% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,444,902
of 23,408,972 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#125
of 397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,493
of 82,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,408,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 82,795 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.