↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation to Complex Pictures: Exposure to Emotional Valence Induces Assimilative Aftereffects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Adaptation to Complex Pictures: Exposure to Emotional Valence Induces Assimilative Aftereffects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rocco Palumbo, Stefania D’Ascenzo, Angelica Quercia, Luca Tommasi

Abstract

Aftereffects have been documented for a variety of perceptual categories spanning from body gender to facial emotion, thus becoming an important tool in the study of high-level vision and its neural bases. We examined whether the perceived valence of a complex scene is subject to aftereffects, by observing the participants' evaluation of the valence of a test picture preceded by a different picture. For this study, we employed an adaptation paradigm with positive and negative images used as adapters, and positive, negative, and neutral images used as tests. Our results show that adaptation to complex emotional pictures induces assimilative aftereffects: participants judged neutral tests more positively following positive adapters and more negatively following negative adapters. This depended on the prolonged adaptation phase (10 s), as the results of a second experiment, in which adapters lasted for 500 ms, did not show aftereffects. In addition, the results show that assimilative aftereffects of negative and positive adapters also manifested themselves on non-neutral (negative and positive) targets, providing evidence that the global emotional content of complex pictures is suitable to induce assimilative aftereffects.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 54%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Unknown 10 38%
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 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,390,619
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,289
of 30,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#355,763
of 419,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#391
of 453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 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 30,081 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 419,865 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 453 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.