↓ Skip to main content

Why overlearned sequences are special: distinct neural networks for ordinal sequences

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
11 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Why overlearned sequences are special: distinct neural networks for ordinal sequences
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vani Pariyadath, Mark H. Plitt, Sara J. Churchill, David M. Eagleman

Abstract

Several observations suggest that overlearned ordinal categories (e.g., letters, numbers, weekdays, months) are processed differently than non-ordinal categories in the brain. In synesthesia, for example, anomalous perceptual experiences are most often triggered by members of ordinal categories (Rich et al., 2005; Eagleman, 2009). In semantic dementia (SD), the processing of ordinal stimuli appears to be preserved relative to non-ordinal ones (Cappelletti et al., 2001). Moreover, ordinal stimuli often map onto unconscious spatial representations, as observed in the SNARC effect (Dehaene et al., 1993; Fias, 1996). At present, little is known about the neural representation of ordinal categories. Using functional neuroimaging, we show that words in ordinal categories are processed in a fronto-temporo-parietal network biased toward the right hemisphere. This differs from words in non-ordinal categories (such as names of furniture, animals, cars, and fruit), which show an expected bias toward the left hemisphere. Further, we find that increased predictability of stimulus order correlates with smaller regions of BOLD activation, a phenomenon we term prediction suppression. Our results provide new insights into the processing of ordinal stimuli, and suggest a new anatomical framework for understanding the patterns seen in synesthesia, unconscious spatial representation, and SD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 5%
United States 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Professor 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Linguistics 4 5%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 July 2013.
All research outputs
#1,079,519
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#512
of 7,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,317
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#31
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 244,142 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 97% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.