↓ Skip to main content

Emotional pictures and sounds: a review of multimodal interactions of emotion cues in multiple domains

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
218 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
Emotional pictures and sounds: a review of multimodal interactions of emotion cues in multiple domains
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01351
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antje B. M. Gerdes, Matthias J. Wieser, Georg W. Alpers

Abstract

In everyday life, multiple sensory channels jointly trigger emotional experiences and one channel may alter processing in another channel. For example, seeing an emotional facial expression and hearing the voice's emotional tone will jointly create the emotional experience. This example, where auditory and visual input is related to social communication, has gained considerable attention by researchers. However, interactions of visual and auditory emotional information are not limited to social communication but can extend to much broader contexts including human, animal, and environmental cues. In this article, we review current research on audiovisual emotion processing beyond face-voice stimuli to develop a broader perspective on multimodal interactions in emotion processing. We argue that current concepts of multimodality should be extended in considering an ecologically valid variety of stimuli in audiovisual emotion processing. Therefore, we provide an overview of studies in which emotional sounds and interactions with complex pictures of scenes were investigated. In addition to behavioral studies, we focus on neuroimaging, electro- and peripher-physiological findings. Furthermore, we integrate these findings and identify similarities or differences. We conclude with suggestions for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 212 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 22%
Student > Master 38 17%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 78 36%
Neuroscience 25 11%
Engineering 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Computer Science 9 4%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 50 23%
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 02 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,416,718
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,314
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,085
of 361,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#242
of 365 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 361,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 365 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.