↓ Skip to main content

Facial emotion processing and recognition among maltreated children: a systematic literature review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
234 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
Facial emotion processing and recognition among maltreated children: a systematic literature review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01460
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela C. da Silva Ferreira, José A. S. Crippa, Flávia de Lima Osório

Abstract

Exposure to maltreatment is associated with biological, psychological, and social development impairments in children. This systematic literature review sought to determine whether an association exists between child maltreatment and facial emotion processing and recognition. The search was conducted using the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and SciELO using the following keywords: "maltreatment," "adversity," "neglect," "sexual abuse," "emotional abuse," "physical abuse," "child(*)," "early," "infant," "face," "facial," "recognition," "expression," "emotion(*)," and "impairment." Seventeen articles were selected and analyzed. Maltreated children tended to exhibit less accuracy in global facial tasks and showed greater reactivity, response bias, and electrophysiological activation of specific brain areas in response to faces expressing negative emotions, especially anger. We concluded that the results of this review are exploratory and non-conclusive due to the small number of studies published and the wide variety of aims and procedures. Those shortcomings notwithstanding, the results indicate definite tendencies and gaps that should be more thoroughly explored in future studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Unknown 231 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 33 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 11%
Researcher 23 10%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 54 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 104 44%
Neuroscience 19 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 68 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,842,420
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,837
of 29,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,513
of 331,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#193
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,687 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 66% 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 331,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.