↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Closeness Centrality on Lexical Processing

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
The Influence of Closeness Centrality on Lexical Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01683
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rutherford Goldstein, Michael S. Vitevitch

Abstract

The present study examined how the network science measure known as closeness centrality (which measures the average distance between a node and all other nodes in the network) influences lexical processing. In the mental lexicon, a word such as CAN has high closeness centrality, because it is close to many other words in the lexicon. Whereas, a word such as CURE has low closeness centrality because it is far from other words in the lexicon. In an auditory lexical decision task (Experiment 1) participants responded more quickly to words with high closeness centrality. In Experiment 2 an auditory lexical decision task was again used, but with a wider range of stimulus characteristics. Although, there was no main effect of closeness centrality in Experiment 2, an interaction between closeness centrality and frequency of occurrence was observed on reaction times. The results are explained in terms of partial activation gradually strengthening over time word-forms that are centrally located in the phonological network.

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 profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 8 19%
Psychology 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 14 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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,741
of 30,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,388
of 320,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#464
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,235 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 320,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.