↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic representations of race: processing goals shape race decoding in the fusiform gyri

Overview of attention for article published in Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Dynamic representations of race: processing goals shape race decoding in the fusiform gyri
Published in
Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, November 2012
DOI 10.1093/scan/nss138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Kaul, Kyle G. Ratner, Jay J. Van Bavel

Abstract

People perceive and evaluate others on the basis of social categories, such as race, gender and age. Initial processing of targets in terms of visually salient social categories is often characterized as inevitable. In the current study, we investigated the influence of processing goals on the representation of race in the visual processing stream. Participants were assigned to one of two mixed-race teams and categorized faces according to their group membership or skin color. To assess neural representations of race, we employed multivariate pattern analysis to examined neural activity related to the presentation of Black and White faces. As predicted, patterns of neural activity within the early visual cortex and fusiform gyri (FG) could decode the race of face stimuli above chance and were moderated by processing goals. Race decoding in early visual cortex was above chance in both categorization tasks and below chance in a prefrontal control region. More importantly, race decoding was greater in the FG during the group membership vs skin color categorization task. The results suggest that, ironically, explicit racial categorization can diminish the representation of race in the FG. These findings suggest that representations of race are dynamic, reflecting current processing goals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 97 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 28%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 10 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 57%
Neuroscience 12 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,917,582
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience
#395
of 1,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,733
of 286,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,812 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 286,091 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.