↓ Skip to main content

Visual Grouping in Accordance With Utterance Planning Facilitates Speech Production

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Visual Grouping in Accordance With Utterance Planning Facilitates Speech Production
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liming Zhao, Kevin B. Paterson, Xuejun Bai

Abstract

Research on language production has focused on the process of utterance planning and involved studying the synchronization between visual gaze and the production of sentences that refer to objects in the immediate visual environment. However, it remains unclear how the visual grouping of these objects might influence this process. To shed light on this issue, the present research examined the effects of the visual grouping of objects in a visual display on utterance planning in two experiments. Participants produced utterances of the form "The snail and the necklace are above/below/on the left/right side of the toothbrush" for objects containing these referents (e.g., a snail, a necklace and a toothbrush). These objects were grouped using classic Gestalt principles of color similarity (Experiment 1) and common region (Experiment 2) so that the induced perceptual grouping was congruent or incongruent with the required phrasal organization. The results showed that speech onset latencies were shorter in congruent than incongruent conditions. The findings therefore reveal that the congruency between the visual grouping of referents and the required phrasal organization can influence speech production. Such findings suggest that, when language is produced in a visual context, speakers make use of both visual and linguistic cues to plan utterances.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 20%
Student > Master 2 20%
Librarian 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 30%
Unspecified 2 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Neuroscience 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,493,741
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,968
of 30,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,626
of 332,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#436
of 577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 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 30,283 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 332,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.