↓ Skip to main content

Electrophysiological Evidence Reveals Differences between the Recognition of Microexpressions and Macroexpressions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Electrophysiological Evidence Reveals Differences between the Recognition of Microexpressions and Macroexpressions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xunbing Shen, Qi Wu, Ke Zhao, Xiaolan Fu

Abstract

Microexpressions are fleeting facial expressions that are important for judging people's true emotions. Little is known about the neural mechanisms underlying the recognition of microexpressions (with duration of less than 200 ms) and macroexpressions (with duration of greater than 200 ms). We used an affective priming paradigm in which a picture of a facial expression is the prime and an emotional word is the target, and electroencephalogram (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine neural activities associated with recognizing microexpressions and macroexpressions. The results showed that there were significant main effects of duration and valence for N170/vertex positive potential. The main effect of congruence for N400 is also significant. Further, sLORETA showed that the brain regions responsible for these significant differences included the inferior temporal gyrus and widespread regions of the frontal lobe. Furthermore, the results suggested that the left hemisphere was more involved than the right hemisphere in processing a microexpression. The main effect of duration for the event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP) was significant, and the theta oscillations (4 to 8 Hz) increased in recognizing expressions with a duration of 40 ms compared with 300 ms. Thus, there are different EEG/ERPs neural mechanisms for recognizing microexpressions compared to recognizing macroexpressions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 26%
Neuroscience 7 14%
Computer Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 30%
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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,230
of 29,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,501
of 337,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#358
of 401 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 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 29,985 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 337,480 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 401 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.