↓ Skip to main content

Less imageable words lead to more looks to blank locations during memory retrieval

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Less imageable words lead to more looks to blank locations during memory retrieval
Published in
Psychological Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00426-018-1084-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alper Kumcu, Robin L. Thompson

Abstract

People revisit spatial locations of visually encoded information when they are asked to retrieve that information, even when the visual image is no longer present. Such "looking at nothing" during retrieval is likely modulated by memory load (i.e., mental effort to maintain and reconstruct information) and the strength of mental representations. We investigated whether words that are more difficult to remember also lead to more looks to relevant, blank locations. Participants were presented four nouns on a two by two grid. A number of lexico-semantic variables were controlled to form high-difficulty and low-difficulty noun sets. Results reveal more frequent looks to blank locations during retrieval of high-difficulty nouns compared to low-difficulty ones. Mixed-effects modelling demonstrates that imagery-related semantic factors (imageability and concreteness) predict looking at nothing during retrieval. Results provide the first direct evidence that looking at nothing is modulated by word difficulty and in particular, word imageability. Overall, the research provides substantial support to the integrated memory account for linguistic stimuli and looking at nothing as a form of mental imagery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 33%
Linguistics 6 12%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,181,185
of 23,821,324 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#154
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,285
of 337,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,821,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 337,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.