↓ Skip to main content

Action-Sentence Compatibility: The Role of Action Effects and Timing

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Action-Sentence Compatibility: The Role of Action Effects and Timing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christiane Diefenbach, Martina Rieger, Cristina Massen, Wolfgang Prinz

Abstract

Research on embodied approaches to language comprehension suggests that we understand linguistic descriptions of actions by mentally simulating these actions. Evidence is provided by the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE) which shows that sensibility judgments for sentences are faster when the direction of the described action matches the response direction. In two experiments, we investigated whether the ACE relies on actions or on intended action effects. Participants gave sensibility judgments of auditorily presented sentences by producing an action effect on a screen at a location near the body or far from the body. These action effects were achieved by pressing a response button that was located in either the same spatial direction as the action effect, or in the opposite direction. We used a go/no-go task in which the direction of the to-be-produced action effect was either cued at the onset of each sentence (Experiment 1) or at different points in time before and after sentence onset (Experiment 2). Overall, results showed a relationship between the direction of the described action and the direction of the action effect. Furthermore, Experiment 2 indicated that depending on the timing between cue presentation and sentence onset, participants responded either faster when the direction of the described action matched the direction of the action effect (positive ACE), or slower (negative ACE). These results provide evidence that the comprehension of action sentences involves the activation of representations of action effects. Concurrently activated representations in sentence comprehension and action planning can lead to both priming and interference, which is discussed in the context of the theory of event coding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 72 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 19%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 63%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Linguistics 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 9 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 June 2014.
All research outputs
#5,996,492
of 24,293,076 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,569
of 32,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,411
of 289,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#366
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,293,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 289,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.