↓ Skip to main content

The complete design in the composite face paradigm: role of response bias, target certainty, and feedback

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
The complete design in the composite face paradigm: role of response bias, target certainty, and feedback
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00885
Pubmed ID
Authors

Günter Meinhardt, Bozana Meinhardt-Injac, Malte Persike

Abstract

Some years ago an improved design (the "complete design") was proposed to assess the composite face effect in terms of a congruency effect, defined as the performance difference for congruent and incongruent target to no-target relationships (Cheung et al., 2008). In a recent paper Rossion (2013) questioned whether the congruency effect was a valid hallmark of perceptual integration, because it may contain confounds with face-unspecific interference effects. Here we argue that the complete design is well-balanced and allows one to separate face-specific from face-unspecific effects. We used the complete design for a same/different composite stimulus matching task with face and non-face objects (watches). Subjects performed the task with and without trial-by-trial feedback, and with low and high certainty about the target half. Results showed large congruency effects for faces, particularly when subjects were informed late in the trial about which face halves had to be matched. Analysis of response bias revealed that subjects preferred the "different" response in incongruent trials, which is expected when upper and lower face halves are integrated perceptually at the encoding stage. The results pattern was observed in the absence of feedback, while providing feedback generally attenuated the congruency effect, and led to an avoidance of response bias. For watches no or marginal congruency effects and a moderate global "same" bias were observed. We conclude that the congruency effect, when complemented by an evaluation of response bias, is a valid hallmark of feature integration that allows one to separate faces from non-face objects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 76%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Unknown 5 15%
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 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,728,987
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,704
of 7,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,551
of 260,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#193
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,139 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 260,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.