↓ Skip to main content

Memory and comprehension deficits in spatial descriptions of children with non-verbal and reading disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Memory and comprehension deficits in spatial descriptions of children with non-verbal and reading disabilities
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene C. Mammarella, Chiara Meneghetti, Francesca Pazzaglia, Cesare Cornoldi

Abstract

The present study investigated the difficulties encountered by children with non-verbal learning disability (NLD) and reading disability (RD) when processing spatial information derived from descriptions, based on the assumption that both groups should find it more difficult than matched controls, but for different reasons, i.e., due to a memory encoding difficulty in cases of RD and to spatial information comprehension problems in cases of NLD. Spatial descriptions from both survey and route perspectives were presented to 9-12-year-old children divided into three groups: NLD (N = 12); RD (N = 12), and typically developing controls (TD; N = 15); then participants completed a sentence verification task and a memory for locations task. The sentence verification task was presented in two conditions: in one the children could refer to the text while answering the questions (i.e., text present condition), and in the other the text was withdrawn (i.e., text absent condition). Results showed that the RD group benefited from the text present condition, but was impaired to the same extent as the NLD group in the text absent condition, suggesting that the NLD children's difficulty is due mainly to their poor comprehension of spatial descriptions, while the RD children's difficulty is due more to a memory encoding problem. These results are discussed in terms of their implications in the neuropsychological profiles of children with NLD or RD, and the processes involved in spatial descriptions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,326,126
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,633
of 29,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,778
of 352,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#305
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,707 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 352,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.