↓ Skip to main content

Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13421-015-0528-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Pérez, Kate Cain, María C. Castellanos, Teresa Bajo

Abstract

We evaluated the process of inferential revision during text comprehension in adults. Participants with high or low working memory read short texts, in which the introduction supported two plausible concepts (e.g., 'guitar/violin'), although one was more probable ('guitar'). There were three possible continuations: a neutral sentence, which did not refer back to either concept; a no-revise sentence, which referred to a general property consistent with either concept (e.g., '…beautiful curved body'); and a revise sentence, which referred to a property that was consistent with only the less likely concept (e.g., '…matching bow'). Readers took longer to read the sentence in the revise condition, indicating that they were able to evaluate their comprehension and detect a mismatch. In a final sentence, a target noun referred to the alternative concept supported in the revise condition (e.g., 'violin'). ERPs indicated that both working memory groups were able to evaluate their comprehension of the text (P3a), but only high working memory readers were able to revise their initial incorrect interpretation (P3b) and integrate the new information (N400) when reading the revise sentence. Low working memory readers had difficulties inhibiting the no-longer-relevant interpretation and thus failed to revise their situation model, and they experienced problems integrating semantically related information into an accurate memory representation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 37%
Linguistics 5 10%
Arts and Humanities 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 23%
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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#947
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,634
of 266,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 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 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 266,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.