↓ Skip to main content

Brain Signatures of New (Pseudo-) Words: Visual Repetition in Associative and Non-associative Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Brain Signatures of New (Pseudo-) Words: Visual Repetition in Associative and Non-associative Contexts
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00354
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatriz Bermúdez-Margaretto, David Beltrán, Fernando Cuetos, Alberto Domínguez

Abstract

The contribution of two different training contexts to online, gradual lexical acquisition was investigated by event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by new, word-like stimuli. Pseudowords were repeatedly preceded by a picture representing a well-known object (semantic-associative training context) or by a hash mark (non-associative training context). The two training styles revealed differential effects of repetition in both behavioral and ERPs data. Repetition of pseudowords not associated with any stimulus gradually enhanced the late positive component (LPC) as well as speeded lexical categorization of these stimuli, suggesting the formation of episodic memory traces. However, repetition under the semantic-associative context caused higher reduction in N400 component and categorization latencies. This result suggests the facilitation in the lexico-semantic processing of pseudowords as a consequence of their progressive associations to picture-concepts, going beyond the visual memory trace that is generated under the non-associative context.

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 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 19%
Psychology 5 14%
Linguistics 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 42%
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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#15,493,993
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,232
of 7,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,223
of 335,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#84
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,215 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 335,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.