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 |
Understanding Language, Hearing Status, and Visual-Spatial Skills
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/deafed/env025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc Marschark, Linda J. Spencer, Andreana Durkin, Georgianna Borgna, Carol Convertino, Elizabeth Machmer, William G. Kronenberger, Alexandra Trani |
| Abstract |
It is frequently assumed that deaf individuals have superior visual-spatial abilities relative to hearing peers and thus, in educational settings, they are often considered visual learners. There is some empirical evidence to support the former assumption, although it is inconsistent, and apparently none to support the latter. Three experiments examined visual-spatial and related cognitive abilities among deaf individuals who varied in their preferred language modality and use of cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing individuals who varied in their sign language skills. Sign language and spoken language assessments accompanied tasks involving visual-spatial processing, working memory, nonverbal logical reasoning, and executive function. Results were consistent with other recent studies indicating no generalized visual-spatial advantage for deaf individuals and suggested that their performance in that domain may be linked to the strength of their preferred language skills regardless of modality. Hearing individuals performed more strongly than deaf individuals on several visual-spatial and self-reported executive functioning measures, regardless of sign language skills or use of CIs. Findings are inconsistent with assumptions that deaf individuals are visual learners or are superior to hearing individuals across a broad range of visual-spatial tasks. Further, performance of deaf and hearing individuals on the same visual-spatial tasks was associated with differing cognitive abilities, suggesting that different cognitive processes may be involved in visual-spatial processing in these groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Peru | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Macao | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 143 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 44 | 30% |
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 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,874,292
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education
#147
of 709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,666
of 277,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 277,567 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them