↓ Skip to main content

Response Hand Differentially Affects Action Word Processing

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Response Hand Differentially Affects Action Word Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina Heck, Bettina Mohr

Abstract

Recent approaches in the tradition of theories of semantic and conceptual "grounding" emphasize the role of perceptual and motor knowledge in language as well as action understanding. However, the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in integrating action-motor and language processes is not clear yet. The present study looked at the influence of a simultaneous motor tapping task on word processing. In a lexical decision task, uni-manual and bi-manual hand-related, and foot-related action verbs were presented in the left and right visual half-field. A group of healthy participants performed tapping with the left hand and lexical decisions with their right hand. In a second group of participants, the reversed hand response pattern was applied. The results showed that response hand had an influence on functional lateralization of word processing when responses were executed with the non-dominant hand. Projecting words to the ipsilateral hemisphere relative to the hemisphere performing lexical decisions led to significantly decreased performance. The results showed that left hand responses led to an increased accuracy for hand-related in contrast to foot-related action verbs. The findings suggest an influence of response hand on action word processing.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 29%
Neuroscience 2 14%
Linguistics 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,484
of 30,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,642
of 440,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#440
of 515 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 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 30,249 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 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 440,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 515 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.