| Title |
Diminished Neural Responses to Emotionally Valenced Facial Stimuli: A Potential Biomarker for Unemotional Traits in Early Childhood
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Child Psychiatry & Human Development, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10578-018-0821-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline P. Hoyniak, John E. Bates, Isaac T. Petersen, Chung-Lin Yang, Isabelle Darcy, Nathalie M. G. Fontaine |
| Abstract |
Callous-unemotional (CU) traits are characterized by deficits in guilt/empathy, shallow affect, and the callous and manipulative use of others. Individuals showing CU traits have increased risk for behavior problems and reduced responses to displays of distress in others. To explore how deficits in emotion-processing are associated with CU traits, the current study examined the association between callous-unemotionality and a neural index of facial emotion processing, using the event-related potential technique in a group of 3-5 year olds. Children viewed a series of static emotional faces, depicting either fear or happiness, while electroencephalography data were collected. The N170 component, thought to index the neural processes associated with face perception, was examined along with CU traits. Findings suggest that the unemotional dimension of CU traits is associated with diminished emotion-processing responses to fearful faces. Reduced neural responses to facial depictions of fear could be a biomarker for unemotional traits in early childhood. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 29 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,792,194
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#92
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,737
of 328,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 328,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.