↓ Skip to main content

Grip Force Reveals the Context Sensitivity of Language-Induced Motor Activity during “Action Words” Processing: Evidence from Sentential Negation

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Grip Force Reveals the Context Sensitivity of Language-Induced Motor Activity during “Action Words” Processing: Evidence from Sentential Negation
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0050287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pia Aravena, Yvonne Delevoye-Turrell, Viviane Deprez, Anne Cheylus, Yves Paulignan, Victor Frak, Tatjana Nazir

Abstract

Studies demonstrating the involvement of motor brain structures in language processing typically focus on time windows beyond the latencies of lexical-semantic access. Consequently, such studies remain inconclusive regarding whether motor brain structures are recruited directly in language processing or through post-linguistic conceptual imagery. In the present study, we introduce a grip-force sensor that allows online measurements of language-induced motor activity during sentence listening. We use this tool to investigate whether language-induced motor activity remains constant or is modulated in negative, as opposed to affirmative, linguistic contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Colombia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 25%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 40%
Neuroscience 12 12%
Linguistics 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 16 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 09 February 2021.
All research outputs
#995,117
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,517
of 193,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,491
of 277,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#263
of 4,758 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 277,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,758 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.