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.
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 |
Is There a Processing Preference for Object Relative Clauses in Chinese? Evidence From ERPs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00995 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Talat Bulut, Shih-Kuen Cheng, Kun-Yu Xu, Daisy L. Hung, Denise H. Wu |
| Abstract |
A consistent finding across head-initial languages, such as English, is that subject relative clauses (SRCs) are easier to comprehend than object relative clauses (ORCs). However, several studies in Mandarin Chinese, a head-final language, revealed the opposite pattern, which might be modulated by working memory (WM) as suggested by recent results from self-paced reading performance. In the present study, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded when participants with high and low WM spans (measured by forward digit span and operation span tests) read Chinese ORCs and SRCs. The results revealed an N400-P600 complex elicited by ORCs on the relativizer, whose magnitude was modulated by the WM span. On the other hand, a P600 effect was elicited by SRCs on the head noun, whose magnitude was not affected by the WM span. These findings paint a complex picture of relative clause processing in Chinese such that opposing factors involving structural ambiguities and integration of filler-gap dependencies influence processing dynamics in Chinese relative clauses. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 14 | 36% |
| Psychology | 6 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 36% |
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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,630,234
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,602
of 30,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,140
of 326,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#635
of 723 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 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 30,437 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 326,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 723 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.