↓ Skip to main content

Differential Visual Processing of Animal Images, with and without Conscious Awareness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Differential Visual Processing of Animal Images, with and without Conscious Awareness
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00513
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weina Zhu, Jan Drewes, Nicholas A. Peatfield, David Melcher

Abstract

The human visual system can quickly and efficiently extract categorical information from a complex natural scene. The rapid detection of animals in a scene is one compelling example of this phenomenon, and it suggests the automatic processing of at least some types of categories with little or no attentional requirements (Li et al., 2002, 2005). The aim of this study is to investigate whether the remarkable capability to categorize complex natural scenes exist in the absence of awareness, based on recent reports that "invisible" stimuli, which do not reach conscious awareness, can still be processed by the human visual system (Pasley et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2004; Fang and He, 2005; Jiang et al., 2006, 2007; Kaunitz et al., 2011a). In two experiments, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to animal and non-animal/vehicle stimuli in both aware and unaware conditions in a continuous flash suppression (CFS) paradigm. Our results indicate that even in the "unseen" condition, the brain responds differently to animal and non-animal/vehicle images, consistent with rapid activation of animal-selective feature detectors prior to, or outside of, suppression by the CFS mask.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,082
of 7,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,692
of 319,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#142
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 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 7,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 319,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.