↓ Skip to main content

Semantic Richness Effects in Spoken Word Recognition: A Lexical Decision and Semantic Categorization Megastudy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 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
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Semantic Richness Effects in Spoken Word Recognition: A Lexical Decision and Semantic Categorization Megastudy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00976
Pubmed ID
Authors

Winston D. Goh, Melvin J. Yap, Mabel C. Lau, Melvin M. R. Ng, Luuan-Chin Tan

Abstract

A large number of studies have demonstrated that semantic richness dimensions [e.g., number of features, semantic neighborhood density, semantic diversity , concreteness, emotional valence] influence word recognition processes. Some of these richness effects appear to be task-general, while others have been found to vary across tasks. Importantly, almost all of these findings have been found in the visual word recognition literature. To address this gap, we examined the extent to which these semantic richness effects are also found in spoken word recognition, using a megastudy approach that allows for an examination of the relative contribution of the various semantic properties to performance in two tasks: lexical decision, and semantic categorization. The results show that concreteness, valence, and number of features accounted for unique variance in latencies across both tasks in a similar direction-faster responses for spoken words that were concrete, emotionally valenced, and with a high number of features-while arousal, semantic neighborhood density, and semantic diversity did not influence latencies. Implications for spoken word recognition processes are discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Professor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 35%
Linguistics 11 15%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 28%
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 23 August 2016.
All research outputs
#12,666,770
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,291
of 29,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,863
of 351,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#199
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,973 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 61% 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 351,565 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 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.