↓ Skip to main content

Apples are not the only fruit: the effects of concept typicality on semantic representation in the anterior temporal lobe

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Apples are not the only fruit: the effects of concept typicality on semantic representation in the anterior temporal lobe
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna M. Woollams

Abstract

Intuitively, an apple seems a fairly good example of a fruit, whereas an avocado seems less so. The extent to which an exemplar is representative of its category, referred to here as concept typicality, has long been thought to be a key dimension determining semantic representation. Concept typicality is, however, correlated with a number of other variables, in particular age of acquisition (AoA) and name frequency. Consideration of picture naming accuracy from a large case-series of semantic dementia (SD) patients demonstrated strong effects of concept typicality that were maximal in the moderately impaired patients, over and above the impact of AoA and name frequency. Induction of a temporary virtual lesion to the left anterior temporal lobe, the region most commonly affected in SD, via repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation produced an enhanced effect of concept typicality in the picture naming of normal participants, but did not affect the magnitude of the AoA or name frequency effects. These results indicate that concept typicality exerts its influence on semantic representations themselves, as opposed to the strength of connections outside the semantic system. To date, there has been little direct exploration of the dimension of concept typicality within connectionist models of intact and impaired conceptual representation, and these findings provide a target for future computational simulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 34%
Neuroscience 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Linguistics 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2012.
All research outputs
#14,150,222
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,579
of 7,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,445
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#196
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.