↓ Skip to main content

Using ultrasound tongue imaging to identify covert contrasts in children’s speech

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Using ultrasound tongue imaging to identify covert contrasts in children’s speech
Published in
Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, June 2016
DOI 10.1080/02699206.2016.1180713
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Zharkova, Fiona E. Gibbon, Alice Lee

Abstract

Ultrasound tongue imaging has become a promising technique for detecting covert contrasts, due to the developments in data analysis methods that allow for processing information on tongue shape from young children. An important feature concerning analyses of ultrasound data from children who are likely to produce covert contrasts is that the data are likely to be collected without head-to-transducer stabilisation, due to the speakers' age. This article is a review of the existing methods applicable in analysing data from non-stabilised recordings. The article describes some of the challenges of ultrasound data collection from children, and analysing these data, as well as possible ways to address those challenges. Additionally, there are examples from typical and disordered productions featuring covert contrasts, with illustrations of quantifying differences in tongue shape between target speech sounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 25%
Linguistics 4 14%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,889,995
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders
#202
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,031
of 372,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 372,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.