↓ Skip to main content

Grammatical Class Effects Across Impaired Child and Adult Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Grammatical Class Effects Across Impaired Child and Adult Populations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Kambanaros, Kleanthes K. Grohmann

Abstract

The aims of this study are to compare quantitative and qualitative differences for noun/verb retrieval across language-impaired groups, examine naming errors with reference to psycholinguistic models of word processing, and shed light on the nature of the naming deficit as well as determine relevant group commonalities and differences. This includes an attempt to establish whether error types differentiate language-impaired children from adults, to determine effects of psycholinguistic variables on naming accuracies, and to link the results to genetic mechanisms and/or neural circuitry in the brain. A total of 89 (language-)impaired participants took part in this report: 24 adults with acquired aphasia, 20 adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, 31 adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and 14 children with specific language impairment. The results of simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the errors in verb naming compared to the psycholinguistic variables for all language-impaired groups are reported and discussed in relation to models of lexical processing. This discussion will lead to considerations of genetic and/or neurobiological underpinnings: Presence of the noun-verb dissociation in focal and non-focal brain impairment make localization theories redundant, but support for wider neural network involvement.The patterns reported cannot be reduced to any one level of language processing, suggesting multiple interactions at different levels (e.g., receptive vs. expressive language abilities).Semantic-conceptual properties constrain syntactic properties with implications for phonological word form retrieval.Competition needs to be resolved at both conceptual and phonological levels of representation. Moreover, this study may provide a cross-pathological baseline that can be probed further with respect to recent suggestions concerning a reconsideration of open- vs. closed-class items, according to which verbs may actually fall into the latter rather than the standardly received former class.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Professor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 19%
Linguistics 13 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 24%
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 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,241,439
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,109
of 29,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,638
of 386,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#254
of 441 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 386,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 441 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.