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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of Speech on Proofreading: Can Task-Engagement Manipulations Shield Against Distraction?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1037/xap0000002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niklas Halin, John E. Marsh, Andreas Haga, Mattias Holmgren, Patrik Sörqvist |
| Abstract |
This article reports 2 experiments that examine techniques to shield against the potentially disruptive effects of task-irrelevant background speech on proofreading. The participants searched for errors in texts that were either normal (i.e., written in Times New Roman font) or altered (i.e., presented either in Haettenschweiler font or in Times New Roman but masked by visual noise) in 2 sound conditions: a silent condition and a condition with background speech. Proofreading for semantic/contextual errors was impaired by speech, but only when the text was normal. This effect of speech was completely abolished when the text was written in an altered font (Experiment 1) or when it was masked by visual noise (Experiment 2). There was no functional difference between the 2 ways to alter the text with regard to the way the manipulations influenced the effects of background speech on proofreading. The results indicate that increased task demands, which lead to greater focal-task engagement, may shield against the distracting effects of background speech on proofreading. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 42% |
| Engineering | 6 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Design | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied
#431
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,818
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 319,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.