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 |
Children's Computation of Complex Linguistic Forms: A Study of Frequency and Imageability Effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0074683 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristina D. Dye, Matthew Walenski, Elizabeth L. Prado, Stewart Mostofsky, Michael T. Ullman |
| Abstract |
This study investigates the storage vs. composition of inflected forms in typically-developing children. Children aged 8-12 were tested on the production of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Storage (vs. composition) was examined by probing for past-tense frequency effects and imageability effects--both of which are diagnostic tests for storage--while controlling for a number of confounding factors. We also examined sex as a factor. Irregular inflected forms, which must depend on stored representations, always showed evidence of storage (frequency and/or imageability effects), not only across all children, but also separately in both sexes. In contrast, for regular forms, which could be either stored or composed, only girls showed evidence of storage. This pattern is similar to that found in previously-acquired adult data from the same task, with the notable exception that development affects which factors influence the storage of regulars in females: imageability plays a larger role in girls, and frequency in women. Overall, the results suggest that irregular inflected forms are always stored (in children and adults, and in both sexes), whereas regulars can be either composed or stored, with their storage a function of various item- and subject-level factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
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 | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 15 | 38% |
| Psychology | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#610,659
of 23,864,690 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,486
of 203,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,208
of 200,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#226
of 4,988 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 200,632 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,988 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 95% of its contemporaries.