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 |
Mothers say “baby” and their newborns do not choose to listen: a behavioral preference study to compare with ERP results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00153 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Moon, Randall C. Zernzach, Patricia K. Kuhl |
| Abstract |
Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female. These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies. Both types of neonatal voice recognition studies imply postnatal retention of prenatal learning. The preference studies require infant motor and motivation systems to mount a response in addition to voice recognition. The current contingent sucking preference study was designed to test neonatal motivation to alter behavior when the reward is the single word "baby" recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar speaker. Results showed an absent or weak contingent sucking response to the brief maternal voice sample, and they demonstrate the complementary value of electrophysiological and behavioral studies for very early development. Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 54 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Professor | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 25% |
| Linguistics | 9 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#1,501,742
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#729
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,551
of 264,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#39
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 264,478 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.