↓ Skip to main content

Non-native Speech Learning in Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Non-native Speech Learning in Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin M. Ingvalson, Casandra Nowicki, Audrey Zong, Patrick C. M. Wong

Abstract

Though there is an extensive literature investigating the ability of younger adults to learn non-native phonology, including investigations into individual differences in younger adults' lexical tone learning, very little is known about older adults' ability to learn non-native phonology, including lexical tone. There are several reasons to suspect that older adults would use different learning mechanisms when learning lexical tone than younger adults, including poorer perception of dynamic pitch, greater reliance on working memory capacity in second language learning, and poorer category learning in older adulthood. The present study examined the relationships among older adults' baseline sensitivity for pitch patterns, working memory capacity, and declarative memory capacity with their ability to learn to associate tone with lexical meaning. In older adults, baseline pitch pattern sensitivity was not associated with generalization performance. Rather, older adults' learning performance was best predicted by declarative memory capacity. These data suggest that training paradigms will need to be modified to optimize older adults' non-native speech sound learning success.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 24%
Linguistics 12 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 18 33%
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 29 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,836,331
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,972
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,074
of 424,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#373
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 424,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.