↓ Skip to main content

Conceptual Structure within and between Modalities

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Conceptual Structure within and between Modalities
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katia Dilkina, Matthew A. Lambon Ralph

Abstract

Current views of semantic memory share the assumption that conceptual representations are based on multimodal experience, which activates distinct modality-specific brain regions. This proposition is widely accepted, yet little is known about how each modality contributes to conceptual knowledge and how the structure of this contribution varies across these multiple information sources. We used verbal feature lists, features from drawings, and verbal co-occurrence statistics from latent semantic analysis to examine the informational structure in four domains of knowledge: perceptual, functional, encyclopedic, and verbal. The goals of the analysis were three-fold: (1) to assess the structure within individual modalities; (2) to compare structures between modalities; and (3) to assess the degree to which concepts organize categorically or randomly. Our results indicated significant and unique structure in all four modalities: perceptually, concepts organize based on prominent features such as shape, size, color, and parts; functionally, they group based on use and interaction; encyclopedically, they arrange based on commonality in location or behavior; and verbally, they group associatively or relationally. Visual/perceptual knowledge gives rise to the strongest hierarchical organization and is closest to classic taxonomic structure. Information is organized somewhat similarly in the perceptual and encyclopedic domains, which differs significantly from the structure in the functional and verbal domains. Notably, the verbal modality has the most unique organization, which is not at all categorical but also not random. The idiosyncrasy and complexity of conceptual structure across modalities raise the question of how all of these modality-specific experiences are fused together into coherent, multifaceted yet unified concepts. Accordingly, both methodological and theoretical implications of the present findings are discussed.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 94 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Master 12 12%
Professor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 43%
Neuroscience 9 9%
Linguistics 9 9%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,159,409
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,584
of 7,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,485
of 244,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#196
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,121 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 244,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.