↓ Skip to main content

Continuous Cognitive Dynamics of the Evaluation of Trustworthiness in Williams Syndrome

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Continuous Cognitive Dynamics of the Evaluation of Trustworthiness in Williams Syndrome
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marilee A. Martens, Adam E. Hasinski, Rebecca R. Andridge, William A. Cunningham

Abstract

The decision to approach or avoid an unfamiliar person is based in part on one's evaluation of facial expressions. Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) are characterized in part by an excessive desire to approach people, but they display deficits in identifying facial emotional expressions. Likert-scale ratings are generally used to examine approachability ratings in WS, but these measures only capture an individual's final approach/avoid decision. The present study expands on previous research by utilizing mouse-tracking methodology to visually display the nature of approachability decisions via the motor movement of a computer mouse. We recorded mouse movement trajectories while participants chose to approach or avoid computer-generated faces that varied in terms of trustworthiness. We recruited 30 individuals with WS and 30 chronological age-matched controls (mean age = 20 years). Each participant performed 80 trials (20 trials each of four face types: mildly and extremely trustworthy; mildly and extremely untrustworthy). We found that individuals with WS were significantly more likely than controls to choose to approach untrustworthy faces. In addition, WS participants considered approaching untrustworthy faces significantly more than controls, as evidenced by their larger maximum deviation, before eventually choosing to avoid the face. Both the WS and control participants were able to discriminate between mild and extreme degrees of trustworthiness and were more likely to make correct approachability decisions as they grew older. These findings increase our understanding of the cognitive processing that underlies approachability decisions in individuals with WS.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 4%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Student > Master 11 23%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 58%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 17%
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 16 May 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,783
of 29,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,189
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,387 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.