The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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.
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 |
Analogical Reasoning in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence From an Eye-Tracking Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00847 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Enda Tan, Xueyuan Wu, Tracy Nishida, Dan Huang, Zhe Chen, Li Yi |
| Abstract |
The present study examined analogical reasoning in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and its relationship with cognitive and executive functioning and processing strategies. Our findings showed that although children with ASD were less competent in solving analogical problems than typically developing children, this inferior performance was attributable to general cognitive impairments. Eye-movement analyses revealed that children with ASD paid less attention to relational items and showed fewer gaze shifts between relational locations. Nevertheless, these eye-movement patterns did not predict autistic children's behavioral performance. Together, our findings suggest that ASD per se does not entail impairments in analogical reasoning. The inferior performance of autistic children on analogical reasoning tasks is attributable to deficits in general cognitive and executive functioning. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 42% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
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 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,509,788
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,006
of 30,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,570
of 331,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#473
of 646 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,365 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 331,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 646 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.