↓ Skip to main content

Conceptual fluency increases recollection: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Conceptual fluency increases recollection: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Wang, Bingbing Li, Chuanji Gao, Huifang Xu, Chunyan Guo

Abstract

It is widely established that fluency can contribute to recognition memory. Previous studies have found that enhanced fluency increases familiarity, but not recollection. The present study was motivated by a previous finding that conceptual priming affected recollection. We used event-related potentials to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of these effects with conceptually related two-character Chinese words. We found that previous conceptual priming effects on conceptual fluency only increased the incidence of recollection responses. We also found that enhanced conceptual fluency was associated with N400 attenuation, which was also correlated with the behavioral indicator of recollection. These results suggest that the N400 effect might be related to the impact of conceptual fluency on recollection recognition. These study findings provide further evidence for the relationship between fluency and recollection.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 60%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Linguistics 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,281,599
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,536
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,217
of 262,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#143
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 262,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.