↓ Skip to main content

Task dependent lexicality effects support interactive models of reading: A meta-analytic neuroimaging review

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychologia, December 2014
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 (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Task dependent lexicality effects support interactive models of reading: A meta-analytic neuroimaging review
Published in
Neuropsychologia, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.014
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Models of reading must explain how orthographic input activates a phonological representation, and elicits the retrieval of word meaning from semantic memory. Comparisons between tasks that theoretically differ with respect to the degree to which they rely on connections between orthographic, phonological and semantic systems during reading can thus provide valuable insight into models of reading, but such direct comparisons are not well-represented in the literature. An ALE meta-analysis explored lexicality effects directly contrasting words and pseudowords using the lexical decision task and overt or covert naming, which we assume rely most on the semantic and phonological systems, respectively. Interactions between task and lexicality effects demonstrate that different demands of the lexical decision and naming tasks lead to different manifestations of lexicality effects.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 83 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 34%
Neuroscience 11 13%
Linguistics 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 June 2021.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#2,618
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,334
of 360,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#43
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 360,867 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 92 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 52% of its contemporaries.