The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 |
The Development of Object Function and Manipulation Knowledge: Evidence from a Semantic Priming Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cynthia Collette, Isabelle Bonnotte, Charlotte Jacquemont, Solène Kalénine, Angela Bartolo |
| Abstract |
Object semantics include object function and manipulation knowledge. Function knowledge refers to the goal attainable by using an object (e.g., the function of a key is to open or close a door) while manipulation knowledge refers to gestures one has to execute to use an object appropriately (e.g., a key is held between the thumb and the index, inserted into the door lock and then turned). To date, several studies have assessed function and manipulation knowledge in brain lesion patients as well as in healthy adult populations. In patients with left brain damage, a double dissociation between these two types of knowledge has been reported; on the other hand, behavioral studies in healthy adults show that function knowledge is processed faster than manipulation knowledge. Empirical evidence has shown that object interaction in children differs from that in adults, suggesting that the access to function and manipulation knowledge in children might also differ. To investigate the development of object function and manipulation knowledge, 51 typically developing 8-9-10 year-old children and 17 healthy young adults were tested on a naming task associated with a semantic priming paradigm (190-ms SOA; prime duration: 90 ms) in which a series of line drawings of manipulable objects were used. Target objects could be preceded by three priming contexts: related (e.g., knife-scissors for function; key-screwdriver for manipulation), unrelated but visually similar (e.g., glasses-scissors; baseball bat-screwdriver), and purely unrelated (e.g., die-scissors; tissue-screwdriver). Results showed a different developmental pattern of function and manipulation priming effects. Function priming effects were not present in children and emerged only in adults, with faster naming responses for targets preceded by objects sharing the same function. In contrast, manipulation priming effects were already present in 8-year-olds with faster naming responses for targets preceded by objects sharing the same manipulation and these decreased linearly between 8 and 10 years of age, 10-year-olds not differing from adults. Overall, results show that the access to object function and manipulation knowledge changes during development by favoring manipulation knowledge in childhood and function knowledge in adulthood. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,685
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,227
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,361
of 342,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#360
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 342,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.