| Title |
Don’t believe everything you hear: Routine validation of audiovisual information in children and adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-018-0807-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin A. Piest, Maj-Britt Isberner, Tobias Richter |
| Abstract |
Previous research has shown that the validation of incoming information during language comprehension is a fast, efficient, and routine process (epistemic monitoring). Previous research on this topic has focused on epistemic monitoring during reading. The present study extended this research by investigating epistemic monitoring of audiovisual information. In a Stroop-like paradigm, participants (Experiment 1: adults; Experiment 2: 10-year-old children) responded to the probe words correct and false by keypress after the presentation of auditory assertions that could be either true or false with respect to concurrently presented pictures. Results provide evidence for routine validation of audiovisual information. Moreover, the results show a stronger and more stable interference effect for children compared with adults. |
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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Researcher | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 26% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 48% |
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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#15,867,545
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#960
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,000
of 330,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 330,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.