↓ Skip to main content

Nonconscious Influences from Emotional Faces: A Comparison of Visual Crowding, Masking, and Continuous Flash Suppression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Nonconscious Influences from Emotional Faces: A Comparison of Visual Crowding, Masking, and Continuous Flash Suppression
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan Faivre, Vincent Berthet, Sid Kouider

Abstract

In the study of nonconscious processing, different methods have been used in order to render stimuli invisible. While their properties are well described, the level at which they disrupt nonconscious processing remains unclear. Yet, such accurate estimation of the depth of nonconscious processes is crucial for a clear differentiation between conscious and nonconscious cognition. Here, we compared the processing of facial expressions rendered invisible through gaze-contingent crowding (GCC), masking, and continuous flash suppression (CFS), three techniques relying on different properties of the visual system. We found that both pictures and videos of happy faces suppressed from awareness by GCC were processed such as to bias subsequent preference judgments. The same stimuli manipulated with visual masking and CFS did not bias significantly preference judgments, although they were processed such as to elicit perceptual priming. A significant difference in preference bias was found between GCC and CFS, but not between GCC and masking. These results provide new insights regarding the nonconscious impact of emotional features, and highlight the need for rigorous comparisons between the different methods employed to prevent perceptual awareness.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Germany 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 185 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 29%
Student > Master 34 17%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 26 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 113 55%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Engineering 8 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 31 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 04 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,249,959
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,438
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,175
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.