↓ Skip to main content

People can understand descriptions of motion without activating visual motion brain regions

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
People can understand descriptions of motion without activating visual motion brain regions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Swethasri Dravida, Rebecca Saxe, Marina Bedny

Abstract

What is the relationship between our perceptual and linguistic neural representations of the same event? We approached this question by asking whether visual perception of motion and understanding linguistic depictions of motion rely on the same neural architecture. The same group of participants took part in two language tasks and one visual task. In task 1, participants made semantic similarity judgments with high motion (e.g., "to bounce") and low motion (e.g., "to look") words. In task 2, participants made plausibility judgments for passages describing movement ("A centaur hurled a spear … ") or cognitive events ("A gentleman loved cheese …"). Task 3 was a visual motion localizer in which participants viewed animations of point-light walkers, randomly moving dots, and stationary dots changing in luminance. Based on the visual motion localizer we identified classic visual motion areas of the temporal (MT/MST and STS) and parietal cortex (inferior and superior parietal lobules). We find that these visual cortical areas are largely distinct from neural responses to linguistic depictions of motion. Motion words did not activate any part of the visual motion system. Motion passages produced a small response in the right superior parietal lobule, but none of the temporal motion regions. These results suggest that (1) as compared to words, rich language stimuli such as passages are more likely to evoke mental imagery and more likely to affect perceptual circuits and (2) effects of language on the visual system are more likely in secondary perceptual areas as compared to early sensory areas. We conclude that language and visual perception constitute distinct but interacting systems.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 39%
Neuroscience 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 October 2013.
All research outputs
#14,650,481
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,380
of 34,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,875
of 289,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#500
of 967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 289,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.