↓ Skip to main content

Multisensory aversive stimuli differentially modulate negative feelings in near and far space

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Multisensory aversive stimuli differentially modulate negative feelings in near and far space
Published in
Psychological Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00426-016-0774-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marine Taffou, Jan Ondřej, Carol O’Sullivan, Olivier Warusfel, Stéphanie Dubal, Isabelle Viaud-Delmon

Abstract

Affect, space, and multisensory integration are processes that are closely linked. However, it is unclear whether the spatial location of emotional stimuli interacts with multisensory presentation to influence the emotional experience they induce in the perceiver. In this study, we used the unique advantages of virtual reality techniques to present potentially aversive crowd stimuli embedded in a natural context and to control their display in terms of sensory and spatial presentation. Individuals high in crowdphobic fear navigated in an auditory-visual virtual environment, in which they encountered virtual crowds presented through the visual channel, the auditory channel, or both. They reported the intensity of their negative emotional experience at a far distance and at a close distance from the crowd stimuli. Whereas auditory-visual presentation of close feared stimuli amplified negative feelings, auditory-visual presentation of distant feared stimuli did not amplify negative feelings. This suggests that spatial closeness allows multisensory processes to modulate the intensity of the emotional experience induced by aversive stimuli. Nevertheless, the specific role of auditory stimulation must be investigated to better understand this interaction between multisensory, affective, and spatial representation processes. This phenomenon may serve the implementation of defensive behaviors in response to aversive stimuli that are in position to threaten an individual's feeling of security.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 28%
Neuroscience 8 14%
Computer Science 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,207,469
of 23,802,430 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#788
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,360
of 300,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,802,430 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.