↓ Skip to main content

Iconic faces are not real faces: enhanced emotion detection and altered neural processing as faces become more iconic

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 127)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Iconic faces are not real faces: enhanced emotion detection and altered neural processing as faces become more iconic
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0021-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. N. Kendall, Quentin Raffaelli, Alan Kingstone, Rebecca M. Todd

Abstract

Iconic representations are ubiquitous; they fill children's cartoons, add humor to newspapers, and bring emotional tone to online communication. Yet, the communicative function they serve remains unaddressed by cognitive psychology. Here, we examined the hypothesis that iconic representations communicate emotional information more efficiently than their realistic counterparts. In Experiment 1, we manipulated low-level features of emotional faces to create five sets of stimuli that ranged from photorealistic to fully iconic. Participants identified emotions on briefly presented faces. Results showed that, at short presentation times, accuracy for identifying emotion on more "cartoonized" images was enhanced. In addition, increasing contrast and decreasing featural complexity benefited accuracy. In Experiment 2, we examined an event-related potential component, the P1, which is sensitive to low-level visual stimulus features. Lower levels of contrast and complexity within schematic stimuli were also associated with lower P1 amplitudes. These findings support the hypothesis that iconic representations differ from realistic images in their ability to communicate specific information, including emotion, quickly and efficiently, and that this effect is driven by changes in low-level visual features in the stimuli.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Researcher 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 34%
Neuroscience 5 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%

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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,525,103
of 13,900,273 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#41
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,643
of 333,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,900,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 333,670 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 56% of its contemporaries.