↓ Skip to main content

Photographs of manipulable objects are named more quickly than the same objects depicted as line-drawings: Evidence that photographs engage embodiment more than line-drawings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
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
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

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
Photographs of manipulable objects are named more quickly than the same objects depicted as line-drawings: Evidence that photographs engage embodiment more than line-drawings
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01187
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua P. Salmon, Heath E. Matheson, Patricia A. McMullen

Abstract

Previous research has shown that photographs of manipulable objects (i.e., those that can be grasped for use with one hand) are named more quickly than non-manipulable objects when they have been matched for object familiarity and age of acquisition. The current study tested the hypothesis that the amount of visual detail present in object depictions moderates these "manipulability" effects on object naming. The same objects were presented as photographs and line-drawings during a speeded naming task. Forty-six participants named 222 objects depicted in both formats. A significant object depiction (photographs versus line drawing) by manipulability interaction confirmed our hypothesis that manipulable objects are identified more quickly when shown as photographs; whereas, non-manipulable objects are identified equally quickly when shown as photographs versus line-drawings. These results indicate that factors such as surface detail and texture moderate the role of "action" and/or "manipulability" effects during object identification tasks, and suggest that photographs of manipulable objects are associated with more embodied representations of those objects than when they are depicted as line-drawings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 58%
Linguistics 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 22%
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 14 November 2014.
All research outputs
#12,904,465
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,940
of 29,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,565
of 259,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#216
of 386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,681 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 58% 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 259,774 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 386 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.