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.
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.
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 |
Early Deafness Increases the Face Inversion Effect But Does Not Modulate the Composite Face Effect
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00124 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adélaïde de Heering, Abeer Aljuhanay, Bruno Rossion, Olivier Pascalis |
| Abstract |
Early deprivation in audition can have striking effects on the development of visual processing. Here we investigated whether early deafness induces changes in holistic/configural face processing. To this end, we compared the results of a group of early deaf participants to those of a group of hearing participants in an inversion-matching task (Experiment 1) and a composite face task (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that deaf individuals would show an enhanced inversion effect and/or an increased composite face effect compared to hearing controls in case of enhanced holistic/configural face processing. Conversely, these effects would be reduced if they rely more on facial features than hearing controls. As a result, we found that deaf individuals showed an increased inversion effect for faces, but not for non-face objects. They were also significantly slower than hearing controls to match inverted faces. However, the two populations did not differ regarding the overall size of their composite face effect. Altogether these results suggest that early deafness does not enhance or reduce the amount of holistic/configural processing devoted to faces but may increase the dependency on this mode of processing. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 48% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
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 03 August 2012.
All research outputs
#18,312,024
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,827
of 29,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,962
of 244,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#381
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,375 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 244,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.