Construct · 5 fields · 10 citations

Where does attention collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one name, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningattention-based viewcompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to attention is attention-based view.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

FILTER → NETWORKSMETAPHOR ONLYattention5 CONSTRUCTSCognitive psych.FILTER · CAPACITYNeuroscienceALERT · ORIENT · EXECUTIVEClinicalSYMPTOM · SELF-REPORTEconomicsSCARCITY · ALLOCATIONMachine learningQUERY · KEY · VALUE

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Cognitive psychology

the selection of some inputs for processing at the expense of others, under limited capacity.

The selection of some inputs for processing at the expense of others, "the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought," in James's phrase. Broadbent made it a bottleneck: a limited-capacity channel with a filter in front of it. Everything since has argued about where the filter sits and whether capacity is one pool or several, but the construct is selection under limitation.[1][2]

Unit
A perceiver, over milliseconds to seconds
Recovery means
Not applicable, attention is a process, not a state to recover from
Measured by
Reaction time and accuracy under dichotic listening, visual search, cueing, and dual-task paradigms

Cognitive neuroscience

three anatomically separable systems, alerting, orienting, and executive control, each with its own measurable score.

Not one thing but three anatomically separable systems: alerting (sustaining a ready state), orienting (moving selection toward a location or object), and executive control (resolving conflict among responses). Posner and Petersen proposed the split from lesion and imaging data; the Attention Network Test gives each network its own score from a single reaction-time task, and the scores are close to independent.[3][4]

Unit
A brain, and three networks within it
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Attention Network Test subtraction scores; fMRI and ERP signatures of each network
Scales indexed for this construct
  • Attention Network Test (ANT)Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I., 2002 · reaction-time subtractions yielding alerting, orienting, and executive scores

Clinical psychology & psychiatry

a cluster of behaviours like failing to sustain focus that, with hyperactivity and impulsivity, defines attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

A cluster of behaviours (failing to sustain focus, being easily distracted, losing things, not seeming to listen) that, together with hyperactivity and impulsivity, defines attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Barkley argued the core deficit is not attention at all but behavioural inhibition; the diagnostic label kept the word anyway. Measured by symptom count against a threshold, usually by self- or informant report.[5][6][7]

Unit
A person, across settings, over six months or more
Recovery means
Symptom count below threshold; functional impairment reduced
Measured by
DSM-5 criteria; the ASRS and other symptom checklists; continuous-performance tests
Scales indexed for this construct
  • Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS)Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demler, O., Faraone, S., Hiripi, E., Howes, M. J., Jin, R., Secnik, K., Spencer, T., Ustun, T. B., & Walters, E. E., 2005 · frequency of DSM-based inattention and hyperactivity symptoms; 6-item screener18 items

Economics & media studies

a finite budget of attention that information senders compete for and receivers allocate, measured by behavioural proxies.

The thing information consumes. Simon's observation ("a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention") turned attention into an economic quantity: a finite budget that senders compete for and receivers allocate. The unit is aggregate and the measures are behavioural proxies: time on page, impressions, engagement. Nothing about selection mechanisms or networks survives the translation.[8]

Unit
An audience, or a market for it
Recovery means
Not modeled, attention is spent, not restored
Measured by
Time spent, views, impressions, engagement metrics; willingness to pay for exposure

Machine learning

a differentiable operation computing a weighted sum over inputs, weighted by similarity between a query and each input's key.

A differentiable operation that computes a weighted sum over a set of inputs, with weights given by the similarity between a query and each input's key. Introduced for machine translation so a decoder could "look back" at any source word, then made the whole architecture in the Transformer. The name is a metaphor for the cognitive meaning (soft selection) but the object is a matrix operation with no capacity limit, no filter, and no perceiver.[9][10]

Unit
A layer in a neural network, one forward pass
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Attention weights (softmax over query–key scores); downstream task performance

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

Combine items across the attention scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

engagement8 fields · 13 citationsjingle · one name, seven constructsintelligence6 fields · 14 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsattention-based view2 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, two levels

References

  1. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt.
  2. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000
  3. Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325
  4. Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886
  5. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
  6. Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
  7. Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demler, O., Faraone, S., Hiripi, E., Howes, M. J., Jin, R., Secnik, K., Spencer, T., Ustun, T. B., & Walters, E. E. (2005). The World Health Organization adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704002892
  8. Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 37–72). Johns Hopkins Press.
  9. Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). arXiv:1409.0473. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473
  10. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. arXiv:1706.03762. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct