Cited by 386Urban Green Space and HealthMind wandering and attentionAesthetic Perception and Analysis

40-second green roof views sustain attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention restoration

Lee, Kate E., Williams, Kathryn J.H., Sargent, Leisa D., Williams, Nicholas S.G., Johnson, Katherine A.·2015·Journal of Environmental Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, K. E., Williams, K. J. H., Sargent, L. D., Williams, N. S. G., & Johnson, K. A.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
42
Pages
182-189
ISSN
0272-4944 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068968249
Cited by
386
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 1
FWCI
16.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Environmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council Linkage (LP0990704)
  • Cybec Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
attention restoration theory, microbreaks, green roofs, sustained attention, urban green space, urban landscape, concrete roofs, attentional control, omission errors, response consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review