↓ Skip to main content

Can Chunk Size Differences Explain Developmental Changes in Lexical Learning?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Can Chunk Size Differences Explain Developmental Changes in Lexical Learning?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01925
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleonore H. M. Smalle, Louisa Bogaerts, Morgane Simonis, Wouter Duyck, Michael P. A. Page, Martin G. Edwards, Arnaud Szmalec

Abstract

In three experiments, we investigated Hebb repetition learning (HRL) differences between children and adults, as a function of the type of item (lexical vs. sub-lexical) and the level of item-overlap between sequences. In a first experiment, it was shown that when non-repeating and repeating (Hebb) sequences of words were all permutations of the same words, HRL was slower than when the sequences shared no words. This item-overlap effect was observed in both children and adults. In a second experiment, we used syllable sequences and we observed reduced HRL due to item-overlap only in children. The findings are explained within a chunking account of the HRL effect on the basis of which we hypothesize that children, compared with adults, chunk syllable sequences in smaller units. By hypothesis, small chunks are more prone to interference from anagram representations included in the filler sequences, potentially explaining the item-overlap effect in children. This hypothesis was tested in a third experiment with adults where we experimentally manipulated the chunk size by embedding pauses in the syllable sequences. Interestingly, we showed that imposing a small chunk size caused adults to show the same behavioral effects as those observed in children. Departing from the analogy between verbal HRL and lexical development, the results are discussed in light of the less-is-more hypothesis of age-related differences in language acquisition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 29%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 54%
Linguistics 5 10%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,907,007
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,254
of 32,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,890
of 402,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#310
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 402,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.