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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Acquiring and Producing Sentences: Whether Learners Use Verb-Specific or Verb-General Information Depends on Cue Validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00404 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malathi Thothathiri, Michelle G Rattinger |
| Abstract |
Learning to produce sentences involves learning patterns that enable the generation of new utterances. Language contains both verb-specific and verb-general regularities that are relevant to this capacity. Previous research has focused on whether one source is more important than the other. We tested whether the production system can flexibly learn to use either source, depending on the predictive validity of different cues in the input. Participants learned new sentence structures in a miniature language paradigm. In three experiments, we manipulated whether individual verbs or verb-general mappings better predicted the structures heard during learning. Evaluation of participants' subsequent production revealed that they could use either the structural preferences of individual verbs or abstract meaning-to-form mappings to construct new sentences. Further, this choice varied according to cue validity. These results demonstrate flexibility within the production architecture and the importance of considering how language was learned when discussing how language is used. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 33% |
| Turkey | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 38% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 43% |
| Linguistics | 6 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,911,765
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,955
of 29,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,971
of 300,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,894 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 300,567 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 67% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.