↓ Skip to main content

Subliminal cues bias perception of facial affect in patients with social phobia: evidence for enhanced unconscious threat processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Subliminal cues bias perception of facial affect in patients with social phobia: evidence for enhanced unconscious threat processing
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aiste Jusyte, Michael Schönenberg

Abstract

Socially anxious individuals have been shown to exhibit altered processing of facial affect, especially expressions signaling threat. Enhanced unaware processing has been suggested an important mechanism which may give rise to anxious conscious cognition and behavior. This study investigated whether individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) are perceptually more vulnerable to the biasing effects of subliminal threat cues compared to healthy controls. In a perceptual judgment task, 23 SAD and 23 matched control participants were asked to rate the affective valence of parametrically manipulated affective expressions ranging from neutral to angry. Each trial was preceded by subliminal presentation of an angry/neutral cue. The SAD group tended to rate target faces as "angry" when the preceding subliminal stimulus was angry vs. neutral, while healthy participants were not biased by the subliminal stimulus presentation. The perceptual bias in SAD was also associated with higher reaction time latencies in the subliminal angry cue condition. The results provide further support for enhanced unconscious threat processing in SAD individuals. The implications for etiology, maintenance, and treatment of SAD are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 43%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Unspecified 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,782,376
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,908
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,483
of 229,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#186
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 229,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.