| Title |
What is Overt and what is Covert in Congenital Prosopagnosia?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychology Review, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11065-012-9223-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Davide Rivolta, Romina Palermo, Laura Schmalzl |
| Abstract |
The term covert recognition refers to recognition without awareness. In the context of face recognition, it refers to the fact that some individuals show behavioural, electrophysiological or autonomic indices of recognition in the absence of overt, conscious recognition. Originally described in cases of people that have lost their ability to overtly recognize faces (acquired prosopagnosia, AP), covert face recognition has more recently also been described in cases of congenital prosopagnosia (CP), who never develop typical overt face recognition skills. The presence of covert processing in a developmental disorder such as CP is a particularly intriguing phenomenon, and its investigation is relevant for a variety of reasons. From a theoretical point of view, it is useful to help shed light on the cognitive and neural underpinnings of face recognition deficits. From a clinical point of view, it has the potential to aid the design of rehabilitation protocols aimed at improving face recognition skills in this population. In the current review we selectively summarize the recent literature on covert face recognition in CP, highlight its main findings, and provide a theoretical interpretation for them. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,123,289
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#71
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,098
of 178,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 178,953 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.