↓ Skip to main content

Social Experience Does Not Abolish Cultural Diversity in Eye Movements

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Social Experience Does Not Abolish Cultural Diversity in Eye Movements
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Kelly, Rachael E. Jack, Sébastien Miellet, Emanuele De Luca, Kay Foreman, Roberto Caldara

Abstract

Adults from Eastern (e.g., China) and Western (e.g., USA) cultural groups display pronounced differences in a range of visual processing tasks. For example, the eye movement strategies used for information extraction during a variety of face processing tasks (e.g., identification and facial expressions of emotion categorization) differs across cultural groups. Currently, many of the differences reported in previous studies have asserted that culture itself is responsible for shaping the way we process visual information, yet this has never been directly investigated. In the current study, we assessed the relative contribution of genetic and cultural factors by testing face processing in a population of British Born Chinese adults using face recognition and expression classification tasks. Contrary to predictions made by the cultural differences framework, the majority of British Born Chinese adults deployed "Eastern" eye movement strategies, while approximately 25% of participants displayed "Western" strategies. Furthermore, the cultural eye movement strategies used by individuals were consistent across recognition and expression tasks. These findings suggest that "culture" alone cannot straightforwardly account for diversity in eye movement patterns. Instead a more complex understanding of how the environment and individual experiences can influence the mechanisms that govern visual processing is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 61 56%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 26 24%
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 27 March 2012.
All research outputs
#13,857,114
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,027
of 29,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,647
of 180,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#158
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 180,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.