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 |
Effects of word-evoked object size on covert numerosity estimations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00876 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Magda L. Dumitru, Gitte H. Joergensen |
| Abstract |
We investigated whether the size and number of objects mentioned in digit-word expressions influenced participants' performance in covert numerosity estimations (i.e., property probability ratings). Participants read descriptions of big or small animals standing in short, medium, and long rows (e.g., There are 8 elephants/ants in a row) and subsequently estimated the probability that a health statement about them was true (e.g., All elephants/ants are healthy). Statements about large animals scored lower than statements about small animals, confirming classical findings that humans perceive groups of large objects as being more numerous than groups of small objects (Binet, 1890) and suggesting that object size effects in covert numerosity estimations are particularly robust. Also, statements about longer rows scored lower than statements about shorter rows (cf. Sears, 1983) but no interaction between factors obtained, suggesting that quantity information is not fully retrieved in digit-word expressions or that their values are processed separately. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 38% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 13% |
| Psychology | 1 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,318
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,299
of 264,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#419
of 561 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 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 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 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 264,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 561 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.