↓ Skip to main content

Reference frame selection in dialog: priming or preference?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Reference frame selection in dialog: priming or preference?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00667
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Johannsen, Jan P. De Ruiter

Abstract

We investigate effects of priming and preference on frame of reference (FOR) selection in dialog. In a first study, we determine FOR preferences for specific object configurations to establish a baseline. In a second study, we focus on the selection of the relative or the intrinsic FOR in dialog using the same stimuli and addressing the questions whether (a) interlocutors prime each other to use the same FOR consistently or (b) the preference for the intrinsic FOR predominates priming effects. Our results show effects of priming (more use of the relative FOR) and a decreased preference for the intrinsic FOR. However, as FOR selection did not have an effect on target trial accuracy, neither effect alone represents the key to successful communication in this domain. Rather, we found that successful communication depended on the adaptation of strategies between interlocutors: the more the interlocutors adapted to each other's strategies, the more successful they were.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 35%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Lecturer 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 57%
Linguistics 4 17%
Computer Science 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,638,256
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,729
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,589
of 280,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#268
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 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 75% 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 280,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 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 68% of its contemporaries.