↓ Skip to main content

Do neural correlates of face expertise vary with task demands? Event-related potential correlates of own- and other-race face inversion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Do neural correlates of face expertise vary with task demands? Event-related potential correlates of own- and other-race face inversion
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00898
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holger Wiese

Abstract

We are typically more accurate at remembering own- than other-race faces. This "own-race bias" has been suggested to result from enhanced expertise with and more efficient perceptual processing of own-race than other-race faces. In line with this idea, the N170, an event-related potential correlate of face perception, has been repeatedly found to be larger for other-race faces. Other studies, however, found no difference in N170 amplitude for faces from diverse ethnic groups. The present study tested whether these seemingly incongruent findings can be explained by varying task demands. European participants were presented with upright and inverted European and Asian faces (as well as European and Asian houses), and asked to either indicate the ethnicity or the orientation of the stimuli. Larger N170s for other-race faces were observed in the ethnicity but not in the orientation task, suggesting that the necessity to process facial category information is a minimum prerequisite for the occurrence of the effect. In addition, N170 inversion effects, with larger amplitudes for inverted relative to upright stimuli, were more pronounced for own- relative to other-race faces in both tasks. Overall, the present findings suggest that the occurrence of ethnicity effects in N170 for upright faces depends on the amount of facial detail required for the task at hand. At the same time, the larger inversion effects for own- than other-race faces occur independent of task and may reflect the fine-tuning of perceptual processing to faces of maximum expertise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 50%
Engineering 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,360,179
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,056
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,098
of 280,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#764
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 280,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.