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 |
Evidence for the role of German final devoicing in pre-attentive speech processing: a mismatch negativity study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01317 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hubert Truckenbrodt, Johanna Steinberg, Thomas K. Jacobsen, Thomas Jacobsen |
| Abstract |
Results of a mismatch negativity experiment are reported in which the pre-attentive relevance of the German phonological alternation of final devoicing (FD) is shown in two ways. The experiment employs pseudowords. (1) A deviant [vus] paired with standard /vuzə/ did not show a mismatch effect for the voicing change in /z/ versus [s] because the two can be related by FD. When standard and deviant were reversed, the two could not be related by FD and a mismatch effect for the voicing difference occurred. (2) An ill-formed deviant that violates FD, *[vuz], triggered mismatch effects that were plausibly attributed to its ill-formedness. The results show that a syllable-related process like FD is already taken into account by the processing system in early pre-attentive processing. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 5 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 6 | 40% |
| Psychology | 3 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
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 25 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,995
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#302,833
of 361,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#342
of 359 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 361,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 359 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.