↓ Skip to main content

Semantic organization in children with cochlear implants: computational analysis of verbal fluency

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Semantic organization in children with cochlear implants: computational analysis of verbal fluency
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00543
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoed N. Kenett, Deena Wechsler-Kashi, Dror Y. Kenett, Richard G. Schwartz, Eshel Ben-Jacob, Miriam Faust

Abstract

Purpose: Cochlear implants (CIs) enable children with severe and profound hearing impairments to perceive the sensation of sound sufficiently to permit oral language acquisition. So far, studies have focused mainly on technological improvements and general outcomes of implantation for speech perception and spoken language development. This study quantitatively explored the organization of the semantic networks of children with CIs in comparison to those of age-matched normal hearing (NH) peers. Method: Twenty seven children with CIs and twenty seven age- and IQ-matched NH children ages 7-10 were tested on a timed animal verbal fluency task (Name as many animals as you can). The responses were analyzed using correlation and network methodologies. The structure of the animal category semantic network for both groups were extracted and compared. Results: Children with CIs appeared to have a less-developed semantic network structure compared to age-matched NH peers. The average shortest path length (ASPL) and the network diameter measures were larger for the NH group compared to the CIs group. This difference was consistent for the analysis of networks derived from animal names generated by each group [sample-matched correlation networks (SMCN)] and for the networks derived from the common animal names generated by both groups [word-matched correlation networks (WMCN)]. Conclusions: The main difference between the semantic networks of children with CIs and NH lies in the network structure. The semantic network of children with CIs is under-developed compared to the semantic network of the age-matched NH children. We discuss the practical and clinical implications of our findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Linguistics 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 17 22%
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 02 September 2013.
All research outputs
#15,278,165
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,502
of 29,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,551
of 280,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#721
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 280,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.