↓ Skip to main content

Subcortical amygdala pathways enable rapid face processing

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Subcortical amygdala pathways enable rapid face processing
Published in
NeuroImage, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mona M. Garvert, Karl J. Friston, Raymond J. Dolan, Marta I. Garrido

Abstract

Human faces may signal relevant information and are therefore analysed rapidly and effectively by the brain. However, the precise mechanisms and pathways involved in rapid face processing are unclear. One view posits a role for a subcortical connection between early visual sensory regions and the amygdala, while an alternative account emphasises cortical mediation. To adjudicate between these functional architectures, we recorded magnetoencephalographic (MEG) evoked fields in human subjects to presentation of faces with varying emotional valence. Early brain activity was better explained by dynamic causal models containing a direct subcortical connection to the amygdala irrespective of emotional modulation. At longer latencies, models without a subcortical connection had comparable evidence. Hence, our results support the hypothesis that a subcortical pathway to the amygdala plays a role in rapid sensory processing of faces, in particular during early stimulus processing. This finding contributes to an understanding of the amygdala as a behavioural relevance detector.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 206 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 27%
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Master 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Professor 15 7%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 27 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 85 38%
Neuroscience 44 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 5%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 39 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,948,285
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#1,461
of 12,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,284
of 241,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#12
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 241,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.