↓ Skip to main content

Discriminability effect on Garner interference: evidence from recognition of facial identity and expression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Discriminability effect on Garner interference: evidence from recognition of facial identity and expression
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00943
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yamin Wang, Xiaolan Fu, Robert A. Johnston, Zheng Yan

Abstract

Using Garner's speeded classification task existing studies demonstrated an asymmetric interference in the recognition of facial identity and facial expression. It seems that expression is hard to interfere with identity recognition. However, discriminability of identity and expression, a potential confounding variable, had not been carefully examined in existing studies. In current work, we manipulated discriminability of identity and expression by matching facial shape (long or round) in identity and matching mouth (opened or closed) in facial expression. Garner interference was found either from identity to expression (Experiment 1) or from expression to identity (Experiment 2). Interference was also found in both directions (Experiment 3) or in neither direction (Experiment 4). The results support that Garner interference tends to occur under condition of low discriminability of relevant dimension regardless of facial property. Our findings indicate that Garner interference is not necessarily related to interdependent processing in recognition of facial identity and expression. The findings also suggest that discriminability as a mediating factor should be carefully controlled in future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 44%
Neuroscience 6 24%
Computer Science 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 16%
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 19 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,213,623
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,906
of 29,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,822
of 280,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 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 29,580 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 280,808 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 969 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.