↓ Skip to main content

Aspects of Facial Contrast Decrease with Age and Are Cues for Age Perception

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
379 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aspects of Facial Contrast Decrease with Age and Are Cues for Age Perception
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0057985
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurélie Porcheron, Emmanuelle Mauger, Richard Russell

Abstract

Age is a primary social dimension. We behave differently toward people as a function of how old we perceive them to be. Age perception relies on cues that are correlated with age, such as wrinkles. Here we report that aspects of facial contrast-the contrast between facial features and the surrounding skin-decreased with age in a large sample of adult Caucasian females. These same aspects of facial contrast were also significantly correlated with the perceived age of the faces. Individual faces were perceived as younger when these aspects of facial contrast were artificially increased, but older when these aspects of facial contrast were artificially decreased. These findings show that facial contrast plays a role in age perception, and that faces with greater facial contrast look younger. Because facial contrast is increased by typical cosmetics use, we infer that cosmetics function in part by making the face appear younger.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 379 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Puerto Rico 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 96 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Researcher 14 14%
Other 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Computer Science 6 6%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 20 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 221. 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 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#134,714
of 22,097,252 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,127
of 188,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#733
of 172,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#52
of 4,678 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,097,252 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 188,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 172,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,678 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 98% of its contemporaries.