↓ Skip to main content

Measuring Cognitive Load in Embodied Learning Settings

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 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
Measuring Cognitive Load in Embodied Learning Settings
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Skulmowski, Günter Daniel Rey

Abstract

In recent years, research on embodied cognition has inspired a number of studies on multimedia learning and instructional psychology. However, in contrast to traditional research on education and multimedia learning, studies on embodied learning (i.e., focusing on bodily action and perception in the context of education) in some cases pose new problems for the measurement of cognitive load. This review provides an overview over recent studies on embodied learning in which cognitive load was measured using surveys, behavioral data, or physiological measures. The different methods are assessed in terms of their success in finding differences of cognitive load in embodied learning scenarios. At the same time, we highlight the most important challenges for researchers aiming to include these measures into their study designs. The main issues we identified are: (1) Subjective measures must be appropriately phrased to be useful for embodied learning; (2) recent findings indicate potentials as well as problematic aspects of dual-task measures; (3) the use of physiological measures offers great potential, but may require mobile equipment in the context of embodied scenarios; (4) meta-cognitive measures can be useful extensions of cognitive load measurement for embodied learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 267 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 15%
Student > Master 40 15%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Lecturer 17 6%
Other 54 20%
Unknown 69 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 12%
Computer Science 27 10%
Social Sciences 24 9%
Engineering 15 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 5%
Other 71 27%
Unknown 83 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#4,442,981
of 24,832,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,475
of 33,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,142
of 322,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#179
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,832,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 322,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 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 69% of its contemporaries.