↓ Skip to main content

Judgments of Learning for Words in Vertical Space

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Judgments of Learning for Words in Vertical Space
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karlos Luna, Beatriz Martín-Luengo, Yury Shtyrov, Andriy Myachykov

Abstract

Close relationship between physical space and internal knowledge representations has received ample support in the literature. For example, location of visually perceived information in vertical space has been shown to affect different numerical judgments. In addition, physical dimensions, such as weight or font size, were shown to affect judgments of learning (JOLs, an estimation of the likelihood that an item will be remembered later, or its perceived memorability). In two experiments we tested the hypothesis that differences in positioning words in vertical space may affect their perceived memorability, i.e., JOLs. In both Experiments, the words were presented in lower or in upper screen locations. In Experiment 1, JOLs were collected in the centre of the screen following word presentation. In Experiment 2, JOLs were collected at the point of word presentation and in the same location. In both experiments participants completed a free recall test. JOLs were compared between different vertically displaced presentation locations. In general, Bayesian analyses showed evidence in support for the null effect of vertical location on JOLs. We interpret our results as indicating that the effects of physical dimensions on JOLs are mediated by subjective importance, information that vertical location alone fails to convey.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,353,668
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,263
of 30,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#350,438
of 416,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#358
of 422 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 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 30,043 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 416,459 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 422 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.