↓ Skip to main content

Attention mechanisms and the mosaic evolution of speech

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 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
Attention mechanisms and the mosaic evolution of speech
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01463
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro T. Martins, Cedric Boeckx

Abstract

There is still no categorical answer as to why humans, and no other species, have speech, or why speech is the way it is. Several purely anatomical arguments have been put forward, but they have been shown to be false, biologically implausible, or of limited scope. This perspective paper supports the idea that evolutionary theories of speech could benefit from a focus on the cognitive mechanisms that make speech possible, for which antecedents in evolutionary history and brain correlates can be found. This type of approach is part of a very recent but rapidly growing trend that has already provided crucial insights on the nature of human speech by focusing on the biological bases of vocal learning. Here we contend that a general mechanism of attention, which manifests itself not only in the visual but also in the auditory modality, might be one of the key ingredients of human speech, in addition to the mechanisms underlying vocal learning, and the pairing of facial gestures with vocalic units.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 %
Spain 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Portugal 1 4%
Unknown 24 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 5 19%
Psychology 4 15%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,610,712
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,019
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,309
of 357,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#202
of 362 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 357,318 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 362 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.