↓ Skip to main content

A cultural side effect: learning to read interferes with identity processing of familiar objects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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 cultural side effect: learning to read interferes with identity processing of familiar objects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Régine Kolinsky, Tânia Fernandes

Abstract

Based on the neuronal recycling hypothesis (Dehaene and Cohen, 2007), we examined whether reading acquisition has a cost for the recognition of non-linguistic visual materials. More specifically, we checked whether the ability to discriminate between mirror images, which develops through literacy acquisition, interferes with object identity judgments, and whether interference strength varies as a function of the nature of the non-linguistic material. To these aims we presented illiterate, late literate (who learned to read at adult age), and early literate adults with an orientation-independent, identity-based same-different comparison task in which they had to respond "same" to both physically identical and mirrored or plane-rotated images of pictures of familiar objects (Experiment 1) or of geometric shapes (Experiment 2). Interference from irrelevant orientation variations was stronger with plane rotations than with mirror images, and stronger with geometric shapes than with objects. Illiterates were the only participants almost immune to mirror variations, but only for familiar objects. Thus, the process of unlearning mirror-image generalization, necessary to acquire literacy in the Latin alphabet, has a cost for a basic function of the visual ventral object recognition stream, i.e., identification of familiar objects. This demonstrates that neural recycling is not just an adaptation to multi-use but a process of at least partial exaptation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 41%
Linguistics 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,533,049
of 25,381,783 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,024
of 34,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,252
of 268,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#84
of 380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 268,787 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 380 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.