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 |
When It Hurts (and Helps) to Try: The Role of Effort in Language Learning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0101806 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy S. Finn, Taraz Lee, Allison Kraus, Carla L. Hudson Kam |
| Abstract |
Compared to children, adults are bad at learning language. This is counterintuitive; adults outperform children on most measures of cognition, especially those that involve effort (which continue to mature into early adulthood). The present study asks whether these mature effortful abilities interfere with language learning in adults and further, whether interference occurs equally for aspects of language that adults are good (word-segmentation) versus bad (grammar) at learning. Learners were exposed to an artificial language comprised of statistically defined words that belong to phonologically defined categories (grammar). Exposure occurred under passive or effortful conditions. Passive learners were told to listen while effortful learners were instructed to try to 1) learn the words, 2) learn the categories, or 3) learn the category-order. Effortful learners showed an advantage for learning words while passive learners showed an advantage for learning the categories. Effort can therefore hurt the learning of categories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 Kingdom | 3 | 13% |
| United States | 3 | 13% |
| Germany | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Greece | 2 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 71% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 62 | 43% |
| Linguistics | 22 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#397,153
of 25,223,158 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,600
of 218,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,426
of 235,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#122
of 4,793 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,223,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 235,187 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,793 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 97% of its contemporaries.