↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory Constraints in Verbal and Non-verbal Communication

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Respiratory Constraints in Verbal and Non-verbal Communication
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00708
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcin Włodarczak, Mattias Heldner

Abstract

In the present paper we address the old question of respiratory planning in speech production. We recast the problem in terms of speakers' communicative goals and propose that speakers try to minimize respiratory effort in line with the H&H theory. We analyze respiratory cycles coinciding with no speech (i.e., silence), short verbal feedback expressions (SFE's) as well as longer vocalizations in terms of parameters of the respiratory cycle and find little evidence for respiratory planning in feedback production. We also investigate timing of speech and SFEs in the exhalation and contrast it with nods. We find that while speech is strongly tied to the exhalation onset, SFEs are distributed much more uniformly throughout the exhalation and are often produced on residual air. Given that nods, which do not have any respiratory constraints, tend to be more frequent toward the end of an exhalation, we propose a mechanism whereby respiratory patterns are determined by the trade-off between speakers' communicative goals and respiratory constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 9 31%
Engineering 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#12,978,729
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,821
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,879
of 313,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#331
of 622 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 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 60% 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 313,744 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 622 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.