↓ Skip to main content

What can Written-Words Tell us About Lexical Retrieval in Speech Production?

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
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
What can Written-Words Tell us About Lexical Retrieval in Speech Production?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01982
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Navarrete, Bradford Z. Mahon, Anna Lorenzoni, Francesca Peressotti

Abstract

In recent decades, researchers have exploited semantic context effects in picture naming tasks in order to investigate the mechanisms involved in the retrieval of words from the mental lexicon. In the blocked naming paradigm, participants name target pictures that are either blocked or not blocked by semantic category. In the continuous naming task, participants name a sequence of target pictures that are drawn from multiple semantic categories. Semantic context effects in both tasks are a highly reliable phenomenon. The empirical evidence is, however, sparse and inconsistent when the target stimuli are printed-words instead of pictures. In the first part of the present study we review the empirical evidence regarding semantic context effects with written-word stimuli in the blocked and continuous naming tasks. In the second part, we empirically test whether semantic context effects are transferred from picture naming trials to word reading trials, and from word reading trials to picture naming trials. The results indicate a transfer of semantic context effects from picture naming to subsequently read within-category words. There is no transfer of semantic effects from target words that were read to subsequently named within-category pictures. These results replicate previous findings (Navarrete et al., 2010) and are contrary to predictions from a recent theoretical analysis by Belke (2013). The empirical evidence reported in the literature together with the present results, are discussed in relation to current accounts of semantic context effects in speech production.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 38%
Neuroscience 5 17%
Linguistics 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,723,811
of 25,081,505 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,865
of 33,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,960
of 405,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#242
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 405,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.