↓ Skip to main content

Perceiving emotion in crowds: the role of dynamic body postures on the perception of emotion in crowded scenes

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Perceiving emotion in crowds: the role of dynamic body postures on the perception of emotion in crowded scenes
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, October 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00221-009-2037-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Edel McHugh, Rachel McDonnell, Carol O’Sullivan, Fiona N. Newell

Abstract

Although the perception of emotion in individuals is an important social skill, very little is known about how emotion is determined from a crowd of individuals. We investigated the perception of emotion in scenes of crowds populated by dynamic characters each expressing an emotion. Facial expressions were masked in these characters and emotion was conveyed using body motion and posture only. We systematically varied the proportion of characters in each scene depicting one of two emotions and participants were required to categorise the overall emotion of the crowd. In Experiment 1, we found that the perception of emotions in a crowd is efficient even with relatively brief exposures of the crowd stimuli. Furthermore, the emotion of a crowd was generally determined by the relative proportions of characters conveying it, although we also found that some emotions dominated perception. In Experiment 2, we found that an increase in crowd size was not associated with a relative decrease in the efficiency with which the emotion was categorised. Our findings suggest that body motion is an important social cue in perceiving the emotion of crowds and have implications for our understanding of how we perceive social information from groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 3 3%
United States 3 3%
France 3 3%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Austria 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 70 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 28%
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 13 15%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 40%
Computer Science 18 20%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 9 10%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,254
of 93,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 93,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 52% of its contemporaries.