↓ Skip to main content

Context influences conscious appraisal of cross situational statistical learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
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
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Context influences conscious appraisal of cross situational statistical learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00691
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J Poepsel, Daniel J Weiss

Abstract

Previous research in cross-situational statistical learning has established that people can track statistical information across streams in order to map nonce words to their referent objects (Yu and Smith, 2007). Under some circumstances, learners are able to acquire multiple mappings for a single object (e.g., Yurovsky and Yu, 2008). Here we explore whether having a contextual cue associated with a new mapping may facilitate this process, or the conscious awareness of learning. Using a cross-situational statistical learning paradigm, in which learners could form both 1:1 and 2:1 word-object mappings over two phases of learning, we collected confidence ratings during familiarization and provided a retrospective test to gage learning. In Condition 1, there were no contextual cues to indicate a change in mappings (baseline). Conditions 2 and 3 added contextual cues (a change in speaker voice or explicit instructions, respectively) to the second familiarization phase to determine their effects on the trajectory of learning. While contextual cues did not facilitate acquisition of 2:1 mappings as assessed by retrospective measures, confidence ratings for these mappings were significantly higher in contextual cue conditions compared to the baseline condition with no cues. These results suggest that contextual cues corresponding to changes in the input may influence the conscious awareness of learning.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 30%
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 47%
Linguistics 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 23%
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 12 July 2014.
All research outputs
#13,410,148
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,305
of 29,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,811
of 225,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#230
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 225,815 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.