↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of two procedures for verbal response time fractionation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
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
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
A comparison of two procedures for verbal response time fractionation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lotje van der Linden, Stéphanie K. Riès, Thierry Legou, Borís Burle, Nicole Malfait, F.-Xavier Alario

Abstract

To describe the mental architecture between stimulus and response, cognitive models often divide the stimulus-response (SR) interval into stages or modules. Predictions derived from such models are typically tested by focusing on the moment of response emission, through the analysis of response time (RT) distributions. To go beyond the single response event, we recently proposed a method to fractionate verbal RTs into two physiologically defined intervals that are assumed to reflect different processing stages. The analysis of the durations of these intervals can be used to study the interaction between cognitive and motor processing during speech production. Our method is inspired by studies on decision making that used manual responses, in which RTs were fractionated into a premotor time (PMT), assumed to reflect cognitive processing, and a motor time (MT), assumed to reflect motor processing. In these studies, surface EMG activity was recorded from participants' response fingers. EMG onsets, reflecting the initiation of a motor response, were used as the point of fractionation. We adapted this method to speech-production research by measuring verbal responses in combination with EMG activity from facial muscles involved in articulation. However, in contrast to button-press tasks, the complex task of producing speech often resulted in multiple EMG bursts within the SR interval. This observation forced us to decide how to operationalize the point of fractionation: as the first EMG burst after stimulus onset (the stimulus-locked approach), or as the EMG burst that is coupled to the vocal response (the response-locked approach). The point of fractionation has direct consequences on how much of the overall task effect is captured by either interval. Therefore, the purpose of the current paper was to compare both onset-detection procedures in order to make an informed decision about which of the two is preferable. We concluded in favor or the response-locked approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 41%
Linguistics 4 15%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 December 2014.
All research outputs
#13,414,292
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,310
of 29,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,947
of 260,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#246
of 384 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 260,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 384 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.