↓ Skip to main content

Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study

Overview of attention for article published in Brain & Language, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
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.
Title
Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study
Published in
Brain & Language, April 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Midori Shibata, Akira Toyomura, Hiroki Motoyama, Hiroaki Itoh, Yasuhiro Kawabata, Jun-ichi Abe

Abstract

Since Aristotle, people have believed that metaphors and similes express the same type of figurative meaning, despite the fact that they are expressed with different sentence patterns. In contrast, recent psycholinguistic models have suggested that metaphors and similes may promote different comprehension processes. In this study, we investigated the neural substrates involved in the comprehension of metaphor and simile using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to evaluate whether simile comprehension differs from metaphor comprehension or not. In the metaphor and simile sentence conditions, higher activation was seen in the left inferior frontal gyrus. This result suggests that the activation in both metaphor and simile conditions indicates similar patterns in the left frontal region. The results also suggest that similes elicit higher levels of activation in the medial frontal region which might be related to inference processes, whereas metaphors elicit more right-sided prefrontal activation which might be related to figurative language comprehension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 27%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 28 28%
Psychology 26 26%
Neuroscience 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 18 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 June 2012.
All research outputs
#2,395,711
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brain & Language
#93
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,468
of 175,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain & Language
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 175,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.