| Title |
The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-015-0965-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Genevieve L. Quek, Matthew Finkbeiner |
| Abstract |
Recent evidence suggests that face processing may be more robust in the upper visual field (UVF) than in the lower visual field (LVF). We asked whether this UVF advantage is due to an upward bias in participants' visuospatial attention. Participants classified the sex of a UVF or LVF target face that was preceded by a congruent or incongruent masked prime face. We manipulated spatial attention within subjects by varying the predictability of target location across sessions (UVF:LVF ratio of 50:50 on Day 1 and 20:80 on Day 2). When target location was unpredictable, priming emerged earlier in the UVF (~165 ms) than the LVF (~195 ms). This UVF advantage was reversed when targets were more likely to be presented in the LVF. Here priming arose earlier for LVF targets (~53 ms) than UVF targets (~165 ms). Critically, however, UVF primes were processed to the same degree regardless of whether spatial attention was diffuse (Day 1) or deployed elsewhere (Day 2). We conclude that, while voluntarily directed spatial attention is sufficient to modulate the processing of masked faces in the LVF, it is not sufficient to explain the UVF advantage for masked face processing. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 33% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#848
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,165
of 288,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 288,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.