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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Automated facial coding software outperforms people in recognizing neutral faces as neutral from standardized datasets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01386 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Lewinski |
| Abstract |
Little is known about people's accuracy of recognizing neutral faces as neutral. In this paper, I demonstrate the importance of knowing how well people recognize neutral faces. I contrasted human recognition scores of 100 typical, neutral front-up facial images with scores of an arguably objective judge - automated facial coding (AFC) software. I hypothesized that the software would outperform humans in recognizing neutral faces because of the inherently objective nature of computer algorithms. Results confirmed this hypothesis. I provided the first-ever evidence that computer software (90%) was more accurate in recognizing neutral faces than people were (59%). I posited two theoretical mechanisms, i.e., smile-as-a-baseline and false recognition of emotion, as possible explanations for my findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 33% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 38% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,853,227
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,366
of 29,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,329
of 267,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#159
of 548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,801 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 71% 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 267,781 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 548 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.