The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Lexical selection in the semantically blocked cyclic naming task: the role of cognitive control and learning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason E. Crowther, Randi C. Martin |
| Abstract |
Studies of semantic interference in language production have provided evidence for a role of cognitive control mechanisms in regulating the activation of semantic competitors during naming. The present study investigated the relationship between individual differences in cognitive control abilities, for both younger and older adults, and the degree of semantic interference in a blocked cyclic naming task. We predicted that individuals with lower working memory capacity (as measured by word span), lesser ability to inhibit distracting responses (as measured by Stroop interference), and a lesser ability to resolve proactive interference (as measured by a recent negatives task) would show a greater increase in semantic interference in naming, with effects being larger for older adults. Instead, measures of cognitive control were found to relate to specific indices of semantic interference in the naming task, rather than overall degree of semantic interference, and few interactions with age were found, with younger and older adults performing similarly. The increase in naming latencies across naming trials within a cycle were negatively correlated with word span for both related and unrelated conditions, suggesting a strategy of narrowing response alternatives based upon memory for the set of item names. Evidence for a role of inhibition in response selection was obtained, as Stroop interference correlated positively with the change in naming latencies across cycles for the related, but not unrelated, condition. In contrast, recent negatives interference correlated negatively with the change in naming latencies across unrelated cycles, suggesting that individual differences in this tap the degree of strengthening of links in a lexical network based upon prior exposure. Results are discussed in terms of current models of lexical selection and consequences for word retrieval in more naturalistic production. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 26% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 37 | 45% |
| Linguistics | 11 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
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 25 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,261
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,001
of 305,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#89
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 305,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.