| Title |
Implied motion language can influence visual spatial memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-017-0699-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David. W. Vinson, Jan Engelen, Rolf A. Zwaan, Teenie Matlock, Rick Dale |
| Abstract |
How do language and vision interact? Specifically, what impact can language have on visual processing, especially related to spatial memory? What are typically considered errors in visual processing, such as remembering the location of an object to be farther along its motion trajectory than it actually is, can be explained as perceptual achievements that are driven by our ability to anticipate future events. In two experiments, we tested whether the prior presentation of motion language influences visual spatial memory in ways that afford greater perceptual prediction. Experiment 1 showed that motion language influenced judgments for the spatial memory of an object beyond the known effects of implied motion present in the image itself. Experiment 2 replicated this finding. Our findings support a theory of perception as prediction. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 52% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,538,272
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,372
of 1,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,109
of 308,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 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 1,572 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 308,059 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 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.