↓ Skip to main content

Sensorimotor simulation and emotion processing: Impairing facial action increases semantic retrieval demands

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Sensorimotor simulation and emotion processing: Impairing facial action increases semantic retrieval demands
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13415-017-0503-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua D. Davis, Piotr Winkielman, Seana Coulson

Abstract

Sensorimotor models suggest that understanding the emotional content of a face recruits a simulation process in which a viewer partially reproduces the facial expression in their own sensorimotor system. An important prediction of these models is that disrupting simulation should make emotion recognition more difficult. Here we used electroencephalogram (EEG) and facial electromyogram (EMG) to investigate how interfering with sensorimotor signals from the face influences the real-time processing of emotional faces. EEG and EMG were recorded as healthy adults viewed emotional faces and rated their valence. During control blocks, participants held a conjoined pair of chopsticks loosely between their lips. During interference blocks, participants held the chopsticks horizontally between their teeth and lips to generate motor noise on the lower part of the face. This noise was confirmed by EMG at the zygomaticus. Analysis of EEG indicated that faces expressing happiness or disgust-lower face expressions-elicited larger amplitude N400 when they were presented during the interference than the control blocks, suggesting interference led to greater semantic retrieval demands. The selective impact of facial motor interference on the brain response to lower face expressions supports sensorimotor models of emotion understanding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 25%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Professor 5 5%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 32%
Neuroscience 8 9%
Computer Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,017,756
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#229
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,105
of 313,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 313,756 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 66% of its contemporaries.