↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: an eye movement study of sentence reading

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: an eye movement study of sentence reading
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgie Columbus, Naveed A. Sheikh, Marilena Côté-Lecaldare, Katja Häuser, Shari R. Baum, Debra Titone

Abstract

Metaphors are common elements of language that allow us to creatively stretch the limits of word meaning. However, metaphors vary in their degree of novelty, which determines whether people must create new meanings on-line or retrieve previously known metaphorical meanings from memory. Such variations affect the degree to which general cognitive capacities such as executive control are required for successful comprehension. We investigated whether individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing using eye movement measures of reading. Thirty-nine participants read sentences including metaphors or idioms, another form of figurative language that is more likely to rely on meaning retrieval. They also completed the AX-CPT, a domain-general executive control task. In Experiment 1, we examined sentences containing metaphorical or literal uses of verbs, presented with or without prior context. In Experiment 2, we examined sentences containing idioms or literal phrases for the same participants to determine whether the link to executive control was qualitatively similar or different to Experiment 1. When metaphors were low familiar, all people read verbs used as metaphors more slowly than verbs used literally (this difference was smaller for high familiar metaphors). Executive control capacity modulated this pattern in that high executive control readers spent more time reading verbs when a prior context forced a particular interpretation (metaphorical or literal), and they had faster total metaphor reading times when there was a prior context. Interestingly, executive control did not relate to idiom processing for the same readers. Here, all readers had faster total reading times for high familiar idioms than literal phrases. Thus, executive control relates to metaphor but not idiom processing for these readers, and for the particular metaphor and idiom reading manipulations presented.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 26%
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 24 32%
Psychology 18 24%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 17%
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 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#12,848,069
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,601
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,736
of 353,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#89
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,141 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 353,075 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.