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 |
Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00639 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Björn Lidestam, Johan Holgersson, Shahram Moradi |
| Abstract |
The effects of two types of auditory distracters (steady-state noise vs. four-talker babble) on visual-only speechreading accuracy were tested against a baseline (silence) in 23 participants with above-average speechreading ability. Their task was to speechread high frequency Swedish words. They were asked to rate their own performance and effort, and report how distracting each type of auditory distracter was. Only four-talker babble impeded speechreading accuracy. This suggests competition for phonological processing, since the four-talker babble demands phonological processing, which is also required for the speechreading task. Better accuracy was associated with lower self-rated effort in silence; no other correlations were found. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Engineering | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
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 08 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,379,018
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,042
of 29,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,955
of 228,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#335
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,677 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 228,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.