↓ Skip to main content

Serial dependence promotes the stability of perceived emotional expression depending on face similarity

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Serial dependence promotes the stability of perceived emotional expression depending on face similarity
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13414-018-1533-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alina Liberman, Mauro Manassi, David Whitney

Abstract

Individuals can quickly and effortlessly recognize facial expressions, which is critical for social perception and emotion regulation. This sensitivity to even slight facial changes could result in unstable percepts of an individual's expression over time. The visual system must therefore balance accuracy with maintaining perceptual stability. However, previous research has focused on our sensitivity to changing expressions, and the mechanism behind expression stability remains an open question. Recent results demonstrate that perception of facial identity is systematically biased toward recently seen visual input. This positive perceptual pull, or serial dependence, may help stabilize perceived expression. To test this, observers judged random facial expression morphs ranging from happy to sad to angry. We found a pull in perceived expression toward previously seen expressions, but only when the 1-back and current face had similar identities. Our results are consistent with the existence of the continuity field for expression, a specialized mechanism that promotes the stability of emotion perception, which could help facilitate social interactions and emotion regulation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 43%
Neuroscience 8 14%
Unspecified 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,115,997
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#696
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,387
of 331,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 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 331,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 50% of its contemporaries.