↓ Skip to main content

The concurrent use of three implicit measures (eye movements, pupillometry, and event-related potentials) to assess receptive vocabulary knowledge in normal adults

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
The concurrent use of three implicit measures (eye movements, pupillometry, and event-related potentials) to assess receptive vocabulary knowledge in normal adults
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13428-015-0571-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry Ledoux, Emily Coderre, Laura Bosley, Esteban Buz, Ishanti Gangopadhyay, Barry Gordon

Abstract

Recent years have seen the advent and proliferation of the use of implicit techniques to study learning and cognition. One such application is the use of event-related potentials (ERPs) to assess receptive vocabulary knowledge. Other implicit assessment techniques that may be well-suited to other testing situations or to use with varied participant groups have not been used as widely to study receptive vocabulary knowledge. We sought to develop additional implicit techniques to study receptive vocabulary knowledge that could augment the knowledge gained from the use of the ERP technique. Specifically, we used a simple forced-choice paradigm to assess receptive vocabulary knowledge in normal adult participants using eye movement monitoring (EM) and pupillometry. In the same group of participants, we also used an N400 semantic incongruity ERP paradigm to assess their knowledge of two groups of words: those expected to be known to the participants (high-frequency, familiar words) and those expected to be unknown (low-frequency, unfamiliar words). All three measures showed reliable differences between the known and unknown words. EM and pupillometry thus may provide insight into receptive vocabulary knowledge similar to that from ERPs. The development of additional implicit assessment techniques may increase the feasibility of receptive vocabulary testing across a wider range of participant groups and testing situations, and may make the conduct of such testing more accessible to a wider range of researchers, clinicians, and educators.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 27%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 31%
Linguistics 11 16%
Engineering 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 15 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,469
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,949
of 274,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 274,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.