↓ Skip to main content

The neural correlates of social attention: automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
The neural correlates of social attention: automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues
Published in
Psychological Research, April 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00426-009-0233-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deanna J. Greene, Eric Mooshagian, Jonas T. Kaplan, Eran Zaidel, Marco Iacoboni

Abstract

Previous evidence suggests that directional social cues (e.g., eye gaze) cause automatic shifts in attention toward gaze direction. It has been proposed that automatic attentional orienting driven by social cues (social orienting) involves a different neural network from automatic orienting driven by nonsocial cues. However, previous neuroimaging studies on social orienting have only compared gaze cues to symbolic cues, which typically engage top-down mechanisms. Therefore, we directly compared the neural activity involved in social orienting to that involved in purely automatic nonsocial orienting. Twenty participants performed a spatial cueing task consisting of social (gaze) cues and automatic nonsocial (peripheral squares) cues presented at short and long stimulus (cue-to-target) onset asynchronies (SOA), while undergoing fMRI. Behaviorally, a facilitation effect was found for both cue types at the short SOA, while an inhibitory effect (inhibition of return: IOR) was found only for nonsocial cues at the long SOA. Imaging results demonstrated that social and nonsocial cues recruited a largely overlapping fronto-parietal network. In addition, social cueing evoked greater activity in occipito-temporal regions at both SOAs, while nonsocial cueing recruited greater subcortical activity, but only for the long SOA (when IOR was found). A control experiment, including central arrow cues, confirmed that the occipito-temporal activity was at least in part due to the social nature of the cue and not simply to the location of presentation (central vs. peripheral). These results suggest an evolutionary trajectory for automatic orienting, from predominantly subcortical mechanisms for nonsocial orienting to predominantly cortical mechanisms for social orienting.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Portugal 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 196 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 21%
Researcher 45 21%
Student > Master 27 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 29 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 103 47%
Neuroscience 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Engineering 8 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 4%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 42 19%
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 20 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,119,347
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#207
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,335
of 95,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 95,005 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them