↓ Skip to main content

Spatial analogies pervade complex relational reasoning: Evidence from spontaneous gestures

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Spatial analogies pervade complex relational reasoning: Evidence from spontaneous gestures
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0024-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kensy Cooperrider, Dedre Gentner, Susan Goldin-Meadow

Abstract

How do people think about complex phenomena like the behavior of ecosystems? Here we hypothesize that people reason about such relational systems in part by creating spatial analogies, and we explore this possibility by examining spontaneous gestures. In two studies, participants read a written lesson describing positive and negative feedback systems and then explained the differences between them. Though the lesson was highly abstract and people were not instructed to gesture, people produced spatial gestures in abundance during their explanations. These gestures used space to represent simple abstract relations (e.g., increase) and sometimes more complex relational structures (e.g., negative feedback). Moreover, over the course of their explanations, participants' gestures often cohered into larger analogical models of relational structure. Importantly, the spatial ideas evident in the hands were largely unaccompanied by spatial words. Gesture thus suggests that spatial analogies are pervasive in complex relational reasoning, even when language does not.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 28%
Researcher 5 13%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 33%
Social Sciences 7 18%
Computer Science 4 10%
Linguistics 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#2,504,044
of 15,398,963 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#60
of 156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,985
of 387,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,398,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 387,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.