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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Better Visuospatial Working Memory in Adults Who Report Profound Deafness Compared to Those With Normal or Poor Hearing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ear and hearing (Print), September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aud.0000000000000314 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Rudner, Gitte Keidser, Staffan Hygge, Jerker Rönnberg |
| Abstract |
Experimental work has shown better visuospatial working memory (VSWM) in profoundly deaf individuals compared to those with normal hearing. Other data, including the UK Biobank resource shows poorer VSWM in individuals with poorer hearing. Using the same database, the authors investigated VSWM in individuals who reported profound deafness. Included in this study were 112 participants who were profoundly deaf, 1310 with poor hearing and 74,635 with normal hearing. All participants performed a card-pair matching task as a test of VSWM. Although variance in VSWM performance was large among profoundly deaf participants, at group level it was superior to that of participants with both normal and poor hearing. VSWM in adults is related to hearing status but the association is not linear. Future study should investigate the mechanism behind enhanced VSWM in profoundly deaf adults. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,975,266
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1,400
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,825
of 348,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 348,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.