↓ Skip to main content

Modulation of Emotional Appraisal by False Physiological Feedback during fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 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
Modulation of Emotional Appraisal by False Physiological Feedback during fMRI
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0000546
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus A. Gray, Neil A. Harrison, Stefan Wiens, Hugo D. Critchley

Abstract

James and Lange proposed that emotions are the perception of physiological reactions. Two-level theories of emotion extend this model to suggest that cognitive interpretations of physiological changes shape self-reported emotions. Correspondingly false physiological feedback of evoked or tonic bodily responses can alter emotional attributions. Moreover, anxiety states are proposed to arise from detection of mismatch between actual and anticipated states of physiological arousal. However, the neural underpinnings of these phenomena previously have not been examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Japan 4 1%
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 313 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 74 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 21%
Student > Master 47 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 6%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Other 64 18%
Unknown 48 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 140 40%
Neuroscience 42 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 7%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 68 20%
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 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#13,369,665
of 23,570,677 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#107,953
of 202,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,118
of 69,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#139
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,570,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 69,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.