↓ Skip to main content

Using semantics to enhance new word learning: An ERP investigation

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychologia, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
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.
Title
Using semantics to enhance new word learning: An ERP investigation
Published in
Neuropsychologia, May 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony J. Angwin, Bernadette Phua, David A. Copland

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of meaning (semantics) would enhance new word learning for novel objects, and whether it would influence the neurophysiological response to new words. Twenty-five young healthy adults underwent 4 days of training to learn the names of 80 novel objects. Half of the items were learnt under a 'semantic' condition, whereby the name consisted of a legal nonword and two adjectives denoting semantic attributes. The remaining items were learnt under a 'name' condition, whereby the name consisted of a legal nonword and two proper names. Participants demonstrated superior recognition of names in the semantic condition compared to the name condition during training sessions 1-3. On the 5th day, following training, ERPs were recorded whilst participants performed a picture-word judgement task including familiar items. Analysis of the results revealed an N400 for incongruent items in the semantic condition, whilst no ERP component was observed for the name condition. These findings suggest that items learnt with semantic information form stronger associations than those trained without semantics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 30%
Linguistics 11 14%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 28%
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 17 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#3,521
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,744
of 241,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#48
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. 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 241,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.