↓ Skip to main content

How to Best Name a Place? Facilitation and Inhibition of Route Learning Due to Descriptive and Arbitrary Location Labels

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
How to Best Name a Place? Facilitation and Inhibition of Route Learning Due to Descriptive and Arbitrary Location Labels
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Meilinger, Jörg Schulte-Pelkum, Julia Frankenstein, Gregor Hardiess, Naima Laharnar, Hanspeter A. Mallot, Heinrich H. Bülthoff

Abstract

Establishing verbal memory traces for non-verbal stimuli was reported to facilitate or inhibit memory for the non-verbal stimuli. We show that these effects are also observed in a domain not indicated before-wayfinding. Fifty-three participants followed a guided route in a virtual environment. They were asked to remember half of the intersections by relying on the visual impression only. At the other 50% of the intersections, participants additionally heard a place name, which they were asked to memorize. For testing, participants were teleported to the intersections and were asked to indicate the subsequent direction of the learned route. In Experiment 1, intersections' names were arbitrary (i.e., not related to the visual impression). Here, participants performed more accurately at unnamed intersections. In Experiment 2, intersections' names were descriptive and participants' route memory was more accurate at named intersections. Results have implications for naming places in a city and for wayfinding aids.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 15%
Computer Science 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,220
of 29,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,682
of 397,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#395
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 397,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.