↓ Skip to main content

The evaluation of sources of knowledge underlying different conceptual categories

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
The evaluation of sources of knowledge underlying different conceptual categories
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guido Gainotti, Pietro Spinelli, Eugenia Scaricamazza, Camillo Marra

Abstract

According to the "embodied cognition" theory and the "sensory-motor model of semantic knowledge": (a) concepts are represented in the brain in the same format in which they are constructed by the sensory-motor system and (b) various conceptual categories differ according to the weight of different kinds of information in their representation. In this study, we tried to check the second assumption by asking normal elderly subjects to subjectively evaluate the role of various perceptual, motor and language-mediated sources of knowledge in the construction of different semantic categories. Our first aim was to rate the influence of different sources of knowledge in the representation of animals, plant life and artifact categories, rather than in living and non-living beings, as many previous studies on this subject have done. We also tried to check the influence of age and stimulus modality on these evaluations of the "sources of knowledge" underlying different conceptual categories. The influence of age was checked by comparing results obtained in our group of elderly subjects with those obtained in a previous study, conducted with a similar methodology on a sample of young students. And the influence of stimulus modality was assessed by presenting the stimuli in the verbal modality to 50 subjects and in the pictorial modality to 50 other subjects. The distinction between "animals" and "plant life" in the "living" categories was confirmed by analyzing their prevalent sources of knowledge and by a cluster analysis, which allowed us to distinguish "plant life" items from animals. Furthermore, results of the study showed: (a) that our subjects considered the visual modality as the main source of knowledge for all categories taken into account; and (b) that in biological categories the next most important source of information was represented by other perceptual modalities, whereas in artifacts it was represented by the actions performed with them. Finally, age and stimulus modality did not significantly influence judgment of relevance of the sources of knowledge involved in the construction of different conceptual categories.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Professor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 30%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Engineering 4 10%
Linguistics 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,679,313
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,699
of 7,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,126
of 280,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#728
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,125 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 280,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.