↓ Skip to main content

Collective Cognition in Humans: Groups Outperform Their Best Members in a Sentence Reconstruction Task

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Collective Cognition in Humans: Groups Outperform Their Best Members in a Sentence Reconstruction Task
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0077943
Pubmed ID
Authors

Romain J. G. Clément, Stefan Krause, Nikolaus von Engelhardt, Jolyon J. Faria, Jens Krause, Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers

Abstract

Group-living is widespread among animals and one of the major advantages of group-living is the ability of groups to solve cognitive problems that exceed individual ability. Humans also make use of collective cognition and have simultaneously developed a highly complex language to exchange information. Here we investigated collective cognition of human groups regarding language use in a realistic situation. Individuals listened to a public announcement and had to reconstruct the sentence alone or in groups. This situation is often encountered by humans, for instance at train stations or airports. Using recent developments in machine speech recognition, we analysed how well individuals and groups reconstructed the sentences from a syntactic (i.e., the number of errors) and semantic (i.e., the quality of the retrieved information) perspective. We show that groups perform better both on a syntactic and semantic level than even their best members. Groups made fewer errors and were able to retrieve more information when reconstructing the sentences, outcompeting even their best group members. Our study takes collective cognition studies to the more complex level of language use in humans.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 2 3%
Austria 2 3%
Hungary 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 66 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 22%
Psychology 14 18%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 28 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,825,541
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#23,493
of 193,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,993
of 211,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#649
of 5,138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 211,883 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.