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 |
Modeling Infant i's Look on Trial t: Race-Face Preference Depends on i's Looking Style
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hoben Thomas, Ina Fassbender |
| Abstract |
When employing between-infant designs young infants' looking style is related to their development: Short looking (SL) infants are cognitively accelerated over their long looking (LL) peers. In fact, looking style is a within-infant variable, and depends on infant i's look distribution over trials. For the paired array setting, a model is provided which specifies the probability, π i ∈ [0, 1], that i is SL. The model is employed in a face preference study; 74 Caucasian infants were longitudinally assessed at 3, 6, and 9 months. Each i viewed same race (Caucasian) vs. other race (African) faces. Infants become SL with development, but there are huge individual differences in rate of change over age. Three month LL infants, [Formula: see text], preferred other race faces. SL infants, [Formula: see text], preferring same race faces at 3, and other race faces at 6 and 9 months. Looking style changes precede and may control changes in face preference. Ignoring looking style can be misleading: Without considering looking style, 3 month infants show no face preference. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 43% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 57% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,201,421
of 23,377,816 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,211
of 31,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,897
of 317,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#492
of 635 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,377,816 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 317,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 635 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.