↓ Skip to main content

Dopamine-dependent visual attention preference to social stimuli in nonhuman primates

Overview of attention for article published in Psychopharmacology, February 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Dopamine-dependent visual attention preference to social stimuli in nonhuman primates
Published in
Psychopharmacology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00213-017-4544-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshie Yamaguchi, Takeshi Atsumi, Romain Poirot, Young-A Lee, Akemi Kato, Yukiori Goto

Abstract

Dopamine (DA) plays a central role in reward processing. Accumulating evidence suggests that social interaction and social stimuli have rewarding properties that activate the DA reward circuits. However, few studies have attempted to investigate how DA is involved in the processing of social stimuli. In this study, we investigated the effects of pharmacological manipulations of DA D1 and D2 receptors on social vs. nonsocial visual attention preference in macaques. Japanese macaques were subjected to behavioral tests in which visual attention toward social (monkey faces with and without affective expressions) and nonsocial stimuli was examined, with D1 and D2 antagonist administration. The macaques exhibited significantly longer durations of gazing toward the images with social cues than did those with nonsocial cues. Both D1 and D2 antagonist administration decreased duration of gazing toward the social images with and without affective valences. In addition, although D1 antagonist administration increased the duration of gazing toward the nonsocial images, D2 antagonism had no effect. These results suggest that both D1 and D2 receptors may have roles in the processing of social signals but through separate mechanisms.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 28%
Psychology 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
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 19 February 2017.
All research outputs
#16,372,568
of 24,896,578 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#4,365
of 5,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,137
of 430,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#27
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,896,578 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 430,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.