↓ Skip to main content

Areas Recruited during Action Understanding Are Not Modulated by Auditory or Sign Language Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Areas Recruited during Action Understanding Are Not Modulated by Auditory or Sign Language Experience
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuxing Fang, Quanjing Chen, Angelika Lingnau, Zaizhu Han, Yanchao Bi

Abstract

The observation of other people's actions recruits a network of areas including the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the inferior parietal lobule (IPL), and posterior middle temporal gyrus (pMTG). These regions have been shown to be activated through both visual and auditory inputs. Intriguingly, previous studies found no engagement of IFG and IPL for deaf participants during non-linguistic action observation, leading to the proposal that auditory experience or sign language usage might shape the functionality of these areas. To understand which variables induce plastic changes in areas recruited during the processing of other people's actions, we examined the effects of tasks (action understanding and passive viewing) and effectors (arm actions vs. leg actions), as well as sign language experience in a group of 12 congenitally deaf signers and 13 hearing participants. In Experiment 1, we found a stronger activation during an action recognition task in comparison to a low-level visual control task in IFG, IPL and pMTG in both deaf signers and hearing individuals, but no effect of auditory or sign language experience. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of the first experiment using a passive viewing task. Together, our results provide robust evidence demonstrating that the response obtained in IFG, IPL, and pMTG during action recognition and passive viewing is not affected by auditory or sign language experience, adding further support for the supra-modal nature of these regions.

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 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 31%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Linguistics 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,474,859
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,287
of 7,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,315
of 299,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#75
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 299,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.