↓ Skip to main content

Timing Matters: The Impact of Immediate and Delayed Feedback on Artificial Language Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
Timing Matters: The Impact of Immediate and Delayed Feedback on Artificial Language Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bertram Opitz, Nicola K. Ferdinand, Axel Mecklinger

Abstract

In the present experiment, we used event-related potentials (ERP) to investigate the role of immediate and delayed feedback in an artificial grammar learning (AGL) task. Two groups of participants were engaged in classifying non-word strings according to an underlying rule system, not known to the participants. Visual feedback was provided after each classification either immediately or with a short delay of 1 s. Both groups were able to learn the artificial grammar system as indicated by an increase in classification performance. However, the gain in performance was significantly larger for the group receiving immediate feedback as compared to the group receiving delayed feedback. Learning was accompanied by an increase in P300 activity in the ERP for delayed as compared to immediate feedback. Irrespective of feedback delay, both groups exhibited learning related decreases in the feedback-related positivity (FRP) elicited by positive feedback only. The feedback-related negativity (FRN), however, remained constant over the course of learning. These results suggest, first, that delayed feedback is less effective for AGL as task requirements are very demanding, and second, that the FRP elicited by positive prediction errors decreases with learning while the FRN to negative prediction errors is elicited in an all-or-none fashion by negative feedback throughout the entire experiment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 164 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 23%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 33 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 28%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Linguistics 13 7%
Neuroscience 8 5%
Engineering 8 5%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 46 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,772,480
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#878
of 7,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,173
of 180,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#18
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 180,335 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.