↓ Skip to main content

Concurrent Word Generation and Motor Performance: Further Evidence for Language-Motor Interaction

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Concurrent Word Generation and Motor Performance: Further Evidence for Language-Motor Interaction
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0037094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy D. Rodriguez, Matthew L. McCabe, Joe R. Nocera, Jamie Reilly

Abstract

Embodied/modality-specific theories of semantic memory propose that sensorimotor representations play an important role in perception and action. A large body of evidence supports the notion that concepts involving human motor action (i.e., semantic-motor representations) are processed in both language and motor regions of the brain. However, most studies have focused on perceptual tasks, leaving unanswered questions about language-motor interaction during production tasks. Thus, we investigated the effects of shared semantic-motor representations on concurrent language and motor production tasks in healthy young adults, manipulating the semantic task (motor-related vs. nonmotor-related words) and the motor task (i.e., standing still and finger-tapping). In Experiment 1 (n = 20), we demonstrated that motor-related word generation was sufficient to affect postural control. In Experiment 2 (n = 40), we demonstrated that motor-related word generation was sufficient to facilitate word generation and finger tapping. We conclude that engaging semantic-motor representations can have a reciprocal influence on motor and language production. Our study provides additional support for functional language-motor interaction, as well as embodied/modality-specific theories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 25%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 May 2012.
All research outputs
#14,522,421
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#126,906
of 224,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,096
of 177,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,870
of 3,859 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 177,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,859 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 51% of its contemporaries.