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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Spatial Congruity Effects Reveal Metaphorical Thinking, not Polarity Correspondence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01836 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Dolscheid, Daniel Casasanto |
| Abstract |
Spatial congruity effects have often been interpreted as evidence for metaphorical thinking, but an alternative account based on polarity correspondence (a.k.a. markedness) has challenged this view. Here we compared metaphor- and polarity-correspondence-based explanations for spatial congruity effects, using musical pitch as a testbed. In one experiment, English speakers classified high- and low-frequency pitches as "high" and "low," or as "front" and "back," to determine whether space-pitch congruity effects could be elicited by any marked spatial continuum. Although both pairs of terms describe bipolar spatial continuums, we found congruity effects only for high/low judgments, indicating that markedness is not sufficient to produce space-pitch congruity effects. A second experiment confirmed that there were no space-pitch congruity effects for another pair of terms that have clear markedness (big/small), but which do not denote spatial height. By contrast, this experiment showed congruity effects for words that cued an appropriate vertical spatial schema (tall/short), even though these words are not used conventionally in English to describe pitches, ruling out explanations for the observed pattern of results based on verbal polysemy. Together, results suggest that space-pitch congruity effects reveal metaphorical uses of spatial schemas, not polarity correspondence effects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 50% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,177,417
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,544
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,090
of 389,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#293
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 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 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 389,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.