↓ Skip to main content

On the Reliability of Switching Costs Across Time and Domains

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
On the Reliability of Switching Costs Across Time and Domains
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalinka Timmer, Marco Calabria, Francesca M. Branzi, Cristina Baus, Albert Costa

Abstract

Bilingual speakers are suggested to use control processes to avoid linguistic interference from the unintended language. It is debated whether these bilingual language control (BLC) processes are an instantiation of the more domain-general executive control (EC) processes. Previous studies inconsistently report correlations between measures of linguistic and non-linguistic control in bilinguals. In the present study, we investigate the extent to which there is cross-talk between these two domains of control for two switch costs, namely the n-1 shift cost and the n-2 repetition cost. Also, we address an important problem, namely the reliability of the measures used to investigate cross-talk. If the reliability of a measure is low, then these measures are ill-suited to test cross-talk between domains through correlations. We asked participants to perform both a linguistic- and non-linguistic switching task at two sessions about a week apart. The results show a dissociation between the two types of switch costs. Regarding test-retest reliability, we found a stronger reliability for the n-1 shift cost compared to the n-2 repetition cost within both domains as measured by correlations across sessions. This suggests the n-1 shift cost is more suitable to explore cross-talk of BLC and EC. Next, we do find cross-talk for the n-1 shift cost as demonstrated by a significant cross-domain correlation. This suggests that there are at least some shared processes in the linguistic and non-linguistic task.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 35%
Linguistics 4 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,325,824
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,132
of 30,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,169
of 328,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#308
of 698 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,444 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 69% 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 328,655 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 698 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 55% of its contemporaries.