↓ Skip to main content

Why Some Faces won't be Remembered: Brain Potentials Illuminate Successful Versus Unsuccessful Encoding for Same-Race and Other-Race Faces

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Why Some Faces won't be Remembered: Brain Potentials Illuminate Successful Versus Unsuccessful Encoding for Same-Race and Other-Race Faces
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather D. Lucas, Joan Y. Chiao, Ken A. Paller

Abstract

Memory is often less accurate for faces from another racial group than for faces from one's own racial group. The mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are a topic of active debate. Contemporary theories invoke factors such as inferior expertise with faces from other racial groups and an encoding emphasis on race-specifying information. We investigated neural mechanisms of this memory bias by recording event-related potentials while participants attempted to memorize same-race (SR) and other-race (OR) faces. Brain potentials at encoding were compared as a function of successful versus unsuccessful recognition on a subsequent-memory test. Late positive amplitudes predicted subsequent memory for SR faces and, to a lesser extent, for OR faces. By contrast, the amplitudes of earlier frontocentral N200 potentials and occipito-temporal P2 potentials were larger for later-remembered relative to later-forgotten OR faces. Furthermore, N200 and P2 amplitudes were larger for OR faces with features considered atypical of that race relative to faces that were race-stereotypical (according to a consensus from a large group of other participants). In keeping with previous reports, we infer that these earlier potentials index the processing of unique or individuating facial information, which is key to remembering a face. Individuation may tend to be uniformly high for SR faces but lower and less reliable for OR faces. Individuation may also be more readily applied for OR faces that appear less stereotypical. These electrophysiological measures thus provide novel evidence that poorer memory for OR faces stems from encoding that is inadequate because it fails to emphasize individuating information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Switzerland 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 113 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 28%
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 70 57%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 18 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 01 July 2023.
All research outputs
#758,417
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#327
of 7,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,195
of 192,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 192,567 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 94% of its contemporaries.