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 |
On the interaction of speakers’ voice quality, ambient noise and task complexity with children’s listening comprehension and cognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00871 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Viveka Lyberg-Åhlander, K. J. Brännström, Birgitta S. Sahlén |
| Abstract |
Suboptimal listening conditions interfere with listeners' on-line comprehension. A degraded source signal, noise that interferes with sound transmission, and/or listeners' cognitive or linguistic limitations are examples of adverse listening conditions. Few studies have explored the interaction of these factors in pediatric populations. Yet, they represent an increasing challenge in educational settings. We will in the following report on our research and address the effect of adverse listening conditions pertaining to speakers' voices, background noise, and children's cognitive capacity on listening comprehension. Results from our studies clearly indicate that children risk underachieving both in formal assessments and in noisy class-rooms when an examiner or teacher speaks with a hoarse (dysphonic) voice. This seems particularly true when task complexity is low or when a child is approaching her/his limits of mastering a comprehension task. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| Portugal | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 7 | 22% |
| Psychology | 6 | 19% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,536,953
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,835
of 29,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,610
of 264,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#109
of 543 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,749 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 264,050 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 543 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.