| Title |
The City Infant Faces Database: A validated set of infant facial expressions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0859-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca Webb, Susan Ayers, Ansgar Endress |
| Abstract |
Adults need to be able to process infants' emotional expressions accurately to respond appropriately and care for infants. However, research on processing of the emotional expressions of infant faces is hampered by the lack of validated stimuli. Although many sets of photographs of adult faces are available to researchers, there are no corresponding sets of photographs of infant faces. We therefore developed and validated a database of infant faces, which is available via e-mail request. Parents were recruited via social media and asked to send photographs of their infant (0-12 months of age) showing positive, negative, and neutral facial expressions. A total of 195 infant faces were obtained and validated. To validate the images, student midwives and nurses (n = 53) and members of the general public (n = 18) rated each image with respect to its facial expression, intensity of expression, clarity of expression, genuineness of expression, and valence. On the basis of these ratings, a total of 154 images with rating agreements of at least 75% were included in the final database. These comprise 60 photographs of positive infant faces, 54 photographs of negative infant faces, and 40 photographs of neutral infant faces. The images have high criterion validity and good test-retest reliability. This database is therefore a useful and valid tool for researchers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 33% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,278
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,097
of 448,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#13
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 448,866 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 63% of its contemporaries.