↓ Skip to main content

Face-Evoked Steady-State Visual Potentials: Effects of Presentation Rate and Face Inversion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Face-Evoked Steady-State Visual Potentials: Effects of Presentation Rate and Face Inversion
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00316
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Forest Gruss, Matthias J. Wieser, Stefan R. Schweinberger, Andreas Keil

Abstract

Face processing can be explored using electrophysiological methods. Research with event-related potentials has demonstrated the so-called face inversion effect, in which the N170 component is enhanced in amplitude and latency to inverted, compared to upright, faces. The present study explored the extent to which repetitive lower-level visual cortical engagement, reflected in flicker steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs), shows similar amplitude enhancement to face inversion. We also asked if inversion-related ssVEP modulation would be dependent on the stimulation rate at which upright and inverted faces were flickered. To this end, multiple tagging frequencies were used (5, 10, 15, and 20 Hz) across two studies (n = 21, n = 18). Results showed that amplitude enhancement of the ssVEP for inverted faces was found solely at higher stimulation frequencies (15 and 20 Hz). By contrast, lower frequency ssVEPs did not show this inversion effect. These findings suggest that stimulation frequency affects the sensitivity of ssVEPs to face inversion.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
China 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 93 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 30%
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 45%
Engineering 16 16%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 19 19%
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 27 November 2012.
All research outputs
#17,671,894
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,695
of 7,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,346
of 244,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#238
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 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 7,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 244,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.