↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Meaning and Emotional Content of a Sentence on the Kinematics of a Successive Motor Sequence Mimiking the Feeding of a Conspecific

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The Effects of Meaning and Emotional Content of a Sentence on the Kinematics of a Successive Motor Sequence Mimiking the Feeding of a Conspecific
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00672
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa De Stefani, Doriana De Marco, Maurizio Gentilucci

Abstract

Do the emotional content and meaning of sentences affect the kinematics of successive motor sequences? Participants observed video-clips of an actor pronouncing sentences expressing positive or negative emotions and meanings (related to happiness or anger in Experiment 1 and food admiration or food disgust in Experiment 2). Then, they reached-to-grasp and placed a sugar lump on the actor's mouth. Participants acted in response to sentences whose content could convey (1) emotion (i.e., face expression and prosody) and meaning, (2) meaning alone, or (3) emotion alone. Within each condition, the kinematic effects of sentences expressing positive and negative emotions were compared. Stimuli (positive for food admiration and negative for food disgust), conveyed either by emotion or meaning affected similarly the kinematics of both grasp and reach. In Experiment 1, the kinematics did not vary between positive and negative sentences either when the content was expressed by both emotion and meaning, or meaning alone. In contrast, in the case of sole emotion, sentences with positive valence made faster the approach of the conspecific. In Experiment 2, the valence of emotions (positive for food admiration and negative for food disgust) affected the kinematics of both grasp and reach, independently of the modality. The lack of an effect of meaning in Experiment 1 could be due to the weak relevance of sentence meaning with respect to the motor sequence goal (feeding). Experiment 2 demonstrated that, indeed, this was the case, because when the meaning and the consequent emotion were related to the sequence goal, they affected the kinematics. In contrast, the sole emotion activated approach or avoidance toward the actor according to positive and negative valence. The data suggest a behavioral dissociation between effects of emotion and meaning.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 33%
Neuroscience 3 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,372,369
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,746
of 29,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,590
of 301,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#302
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,930 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 301,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.