↓ Skip to main content

Cultural differences in on-line sensitivity to emotional voices: comparing East and West

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Cultural differences in on-line sensitivity to emotional voices: comparing East and West
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00311
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pan Liu, Simon Rigoulot, Marc D. Pell

Abstract

Evidence that culture modulates on-line neural responses to the emotional meanings encoded by vocal and facial expressions was demonstrated recently in a study comparing English North Americans and Chinese (Liu et al., 2015). Here, we compared how individuals from these two cultures passively respond to emotional cues from faces and voices using an Oddball task. Participants viewed in-group emotional faces, with or without simultaneous vocal expressions, while performing a face-irrelevant visual task as the EEG was recorded. A significantly larger visual Mismatch Negativity (vMMN) was observed for Chinese vs. English participants when faces were accompanied by voices, suggesting that Chinese were influenced to a larger extent by task-irrelevant vocal cues. These data highlight further differences in how adults from East Asian vs. Western cultures process socio-emotional cues, arguing that distinct cultural practices in communication (e.g., display rules) shape neurocognitive activity associated with the early perception and integration of multi-sensory emotional cues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Philippines 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 29%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Master 5 6%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 38%
Linguistics 8 10%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,461,428
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,655
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,078
of 267,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#71
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 267,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.