↓ Skip to main content

What's on the Inside Counts: A Grounded Account of Concept Acquisition and Development

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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's on the Inside Counts: A Grounded Account of Concept Acquisition and Development
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00402
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serge Thill, Katherine E. Twomey

Abstract

Understanding the factors which affect the age of acquisition (AoA) of words and concepts is fundamental to understanding cognitive development more broadly. Traditionally, studies of AoA have taken two approaches, either exploring the effect of linguistic variables such as input frequency (e.g., Naigles and Hoff-Ginsberg, 1998) or the semantics of the underlying concept, such as concreteness or imageability (e.g., Bird et al., 2001). Embodied theories of cognition, meanwhile, assume that concepts, even relatively abstract ones, can be grounded in the embodied experience. While the focus of such discussions has been mainly on grounding in external modalities, more recently some have argued for the importance of interoceptive features, or grounding in complex modalities such as social interaction. In this paper, we argue for the integration and extension of these two strands of research. We demonstrate that the psycholinguistic factors traditionally considered to determine AoA are far from sufficient to account for the variability observed in AoA data. Given this gap, we propose groundability as a new conceptual tool that can measure the degree to which concepts are grounded both in external and, critically, internal modalities. We then present a mechanistic theory of conceptual representation that can account for groundability in addition to the existing variables argued to influence concept acquisition in both the developmental and embodied cognition literatures, and discuss its implications for future work in concept and cognitive development.

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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 24%
Computer Science 6 12%
Linguistics 4 8%
Philosophy 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 31%
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 02 December 2021.
All research outputs
#14,252,924
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,127
of 29,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,160
of 300,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#287
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,880 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 300,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 475 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.