↓ Skip to main content

Faces are special, but facial expressions aren’t: Insights from an oculomotor capture paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Faces are special, but facial expressions aren’t: Insights from an oculomotor capture paradigm
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, April 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13414-017-1313-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christel Devue, Gina M. Grimshaw

Abstract

We compared the ability of angry and neutral faces to drive oculomotor behaviour as a test of the widespread claim that emotional information is automatically prioritized when competing for attention. Participants were required to make a saccade to a colour singleton; photos of angry or neutral faces appeared amongst other objects within the array, and were completely irrelevant for the task. Eye-tracking measures indicate that faces drive oculomotor behaviour in a bottom-up fashion; however, angry faces are no more likely to capture the eyes than neutral faces are. Saccade latencies suggest that capture occurrs via reflexive saccades and that the outcome of competition between salient items (colour singletons and faces) may be subject to fluctuations in attentional control. Indeed, although angry and neutral faces captured the eyes reflexively on a portion of trials, participants successfully maintained goal-relevant oculomotor behaviour on a majority of trials. We outline potential cognitive and brain mechanisms underlying oculomotor capture by faces.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 45%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Engineering 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#18,827,930
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,508
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,402
of 313,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#18
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 313,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.