↓ Skip to main content

Language comprehension warps the mirror neuron system

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
8 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Language comprehension warps the mirror neuron system
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00870
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah Zarr, Ryan Ferguson, Arthur M. Glenberg

Abstract

Is the mirror neuron system (MNS) used in language understanding? According to embodied accounts of language comprehension, understanding sentences describing actions makes use of neural mechanisms of action control, including the MNS. Consequently, repeatedly comprehending sentences describing similar actions should induce adaptation of the MNS thereby warping its use in other cognitive processes such as action recognition and prediction. To test this prediction, participants read blocks of multiple sentences where each sentence in the block described transfer of objects in a direction away or toward the reader. Following each block, adaptation was measured by having participants predict the end-point of videotaped actions. The adapting sentences disrupted prediction of actions in the same direction, but (a) only for videos of biological motion, and (b) only when the effector implied by the language (e.g., the hand) matched the videos. These findings are signatures of the MNS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
China 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 33%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Linguistics 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#976,518
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#432
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,849
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#60
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 293,942 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 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.