↓ Skip to main content

Interpreting ambiguous social cues in unpredictable contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Interpreting ambiguous social cues in unpredictable contexts
Published in
Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.1093/scan/nsw003
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Caroline Davis, Maital Neta, M. Justin Kim, Joseph M. Moran, Paul J. Whalen

Abstract

Unpredictable environments can be anxiety-provoking and elicit exaggerated emotional responses to aversive stimuli. Even neutral stimuli, when presented in an unpredictable fashion, prime anxiety-like behavior and elicit heightened amygdala activity. The amygdala plays a key role in initiating responses to biologically relevant information, such as facial expressions of emotion. While some expressions clearly signal negative (anger) or positive (happy) events, other expressions (e.g. surprise) are more ambiguous in that they can predict either valence, depending on the context. Here, we sought to determine whether unpredictable presentations of ambiguous facial expressions would bias participants to interpret them more negatively. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and facial electromyography (EMG) to characterize responses to predictable vs unpredictable presentations of surprised faces. We observed moderate but sustained increases in amygdala reactivity to predictable presentations of surprised faces, and relatively increased amygdala responses to unpredictable faces that then habituated, similar to previously observed responses to clearly negative (e.g. fearful) faces. We also observed decreased corrugator EMG responses to predictable surprised face presentations, similar to happy faces, and increased responses to unpredictable surprised face presentations, similar to angry faces. Taken together, these data suggest that unpredictability biases people to interpret ambiguous social cues negatively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Other 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 52%
Unspecified 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Other 4 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,653,760
of 13,555,081 outputs
Outputs from Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience
#750
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,361
of 266,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience
#29
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,555,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 266,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.