↓ Skip to main content

An Interactive View on the Development of Deictic Pointing in Infancy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
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
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
An Interactive View on the Development of Deictic Pointing in Infancy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01319
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina J. Rohlfing, Angela Grimminger, Carina Lüke

Abstract

In this review, we will focus on the development of deictic pointing gestures. We propose that they are based on infants' sensitivities to human motion. Since both conventionalized gestures and bodily movements can be interpreted as communicative, of special interest to us is how pointing gestures are employed within early social interactions. We push forward the idea of a conventionalization process taking place when the interaction partners guide infants' participation toward joint goals. On their way to deploy pointing gestures and thus to successfully influence the partner for a specific purpose, infants need also to disengage from their own object perception or manipulation. In addition, infants accompany their gestures increasingly with verbal utterances-this form of communication is multimodal and offers the possibility to combine modalities for the purpose of expressing more complex utterances. The multimodal behavior will be picked up by caregivers and extended into linguistically more complex forms. Because of this emerging relationship to language and its social use, gestural behavior in early infancy is a powerful predictor for later language development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 35%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Linguistics 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,819,211
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,042
of 30,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,242
of 317,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#404
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,195 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 317,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.