↓ Skip to main content

Giving Good Directions: Order of Mention Reflects Visual Salience

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Giving Good Directions: Order of Mention Reflects Visual Salience
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01793
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alasdair D. F. Clarke, Micha Elsner, Hannah Rohde

Abstract

In complex stimuli, there are many different possible ways to refer to a specified target. Previous studies have shown that when people are faced with such a task, the content of their referring expression reflects visual properties such as size, salience, and clutter. Here, we extend these findings and present evidence that (i) the influence of visual perception on sentence construction goes beyond content selection and in part determines the order in which different objects are mentioned and (ii) order of mention influences comprehension. Study 1 (a corpus study of reference productions) shows that when a speaker uses a relational description to mention a salient object, that object is treated as being in the common ground and is more likely to be mentioned first. Study 2 (a visual search study) asks participants to listen to referring expressions and find the specified target; in keeping with the above result, we find that search for easy-to-find targets is faster when the target is mentioned first, while search for harder-to-find targets is facilitated by mentioning the target later, after a landmark in a relational description. Our findings show that seemingly low-level and disparate mental "modules" like perception and sentence planning interact at a high level and in task-dependent ways.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 35%
Other 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 29%
Linguistics 4 24%
Computer Science 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. 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 27 December 2015.
All research outputs
#214,038
of 23,133,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#431
of 30,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,740
of 390,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#8
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,133,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,588 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 390,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.