↓ Skip to main content

Imaging Imageability: Behavioral Effects and Neural Correlates of Its Interaction with Affect and Context

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Imaging Imageability: Behavioral Effects and Neural Correlates of Its Interaction with Affect and Context
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris F. Westbury, Ivor Cribben, Jacqueline Cummine

Abstract

The construct of imageability refers to the extent to which a word evokes a tangible sensation. Previous research (Westbury et al., 2013) suggests that the behavioral effects attributed to a word's imageability can be largely or wholly explained by two objective constructs, contextual density and estimated affect. Here, we extend these previous findings in two ways. First, we show that closely matched stimuli on the three measures of contextual density, estimated affect, and human-judged imageability show a three-way interaction in explaining variance in LD RTs, but that imagebility accounts for no additional variance after contextual density and estimated affect are entered first. Secondly, we demonstrate that the loci and functional connectivity (via graphical models) of the brain regions implicated in processing the three variables during that task are largely over-lapping and similar. These two lines of evidence support the conclusion that the effect usually attributed to human-judged imageability is largely or entirely due to the effects of other correlated measures that are directly computable.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 16%
Linguistics 5 16%
Neuroscience 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,984,762
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,310
of 7,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,624
of 355,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#108
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,169 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 355,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.