↓ Skip to main content

Developmental Commonalities between Object and Face Recognition in Adolescence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Developmental Commonalities between Object and Face Recognition in Adolescence
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Jüttner, Elley Wakui, Dean Petters, Jules Davidoff

Abstract

In the visual perception literature, the recognition of faces has often been contrasted with that of non-face objects, in terms of differences with regard to the role of parts, part relations and holistic processing. However, recent evidence from developmental studies has begun to blur this sharp distinction. We review evidence for a protracted development of object recognition that is reminiscent of the well-documented slow maturation observed for faces. The prolonged development manifests itself in a retarded processing of metric part relations as opposed to that of individual parts and offers surprising parallels to developmental accounts of face recognition, even though the interpretation of the data is less clear with regard to holistic processing. We conclude that such results might indicate functional commonalities between the mechanisms underlying the recognition of faces and non-face objects, which are modulated by different task requirements in the two stimulus domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 50%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
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 03 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,004,102
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,903
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,458
of 306,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#293
of 479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 306,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 479 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.