↓ Skip to main content

The cognitive chronometric architecture of reading aloud: semantic and lexical effects on naming onset and duration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
The cognitive chronometric architecture of reading aloud: semantic and lexical effects on naming onset and duration
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Layla Gould, Jacqueline Cummine, Ron Borowsky

Abstract

We examined onset reaction time (RT) in a word naming task using an additive factors method (AFM). The pattern of additive and over-additive joint effects on RT among Instructions (INST: name all, name words), Word Frequency (WF: log(10) HAL), Semantic Neighborhood Density (SND: Inverse Ncount), and Word Type (WT: regular, exception) supported a cognitive chronometric architecture consisting of at least two cascaded stages of processing, with the orthographic lexical system as the locus of the INST × WF and the INST × SND interactions, and the phonological output system as the locus of the WF × WT and the SND × WT interactions. Additivity between INST and WT supports the notion that these variables affect separable systems, and a WF × SND interaction supports a common locus of their effects. These results support stage-like/cascaded processing models over parallel processing models of basic reading. We also examined response duration (RD) in these data by recording and hand-marking vocal responses, which provides evidence that basic reading processes are ongoing even after the initiation of a vocal response, and supports the notion that the more lexically a word is read, the shorter the RD. As such, the effects of WT and INST on RD were opposite to their effects on RT however the effects of WF and SND on RD were in the same direction as their effects on RT. Given the combination of consistent and dissociating effects between RT and RD, these results provide new challenges to all models of basic reading processes.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 9 29%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 45%
Linguistics 4 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,667,907
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,695
of 7,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,335
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#238
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.