| Title |
Learning from texts: activation of information from previous texts during reading
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reading and Writing, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11145-016-9630-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katinka Beker, Dietsje Jolles, Robert F. Lorch, Paul van den Broek |
| Abstract |
Learning often involves integration of information from multiple texts. The aim of the current study was to determine whether relevant information from previously read texts is spontaneously activated during reading, allowing for integration between texts (experiment 1 and 2), and whether this process is related to the representation of the texts (experiment 2). In both experiments, texts with inconsistent target sentences were preceded by texts that either did or did not contain explanations that resolved the inconsistencies. In experiment 1, the reading times of the target sentences introducing inconsistencies were faster if the preceding text contained an explanation for the inconsistency than if it did not. This result demonstrates that relevant information from a prior text is spontaneously activated when the target sentence is read. In experiment 2 free recall was used to gain insight into the representation after reading. The reading time results for experiment 2 replicated the reading time results for experiment 1. However, the effects on reading times did not translate to measurable differences in text representations after reading. This research extends our knowledge about the processes involved in multiple text comprehension: Prior text information is spontaneously activated during reading, thereby enabling integration between different texts. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 26% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 21% |
| Linguistics | 7 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,218,560
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Reading and Writing
#397
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,745
of 403,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reading and Writing
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 403,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 54% of its contemporaries.