↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Neural Processing of Disorder-Related Stimuli in Social Anxiety Disorder: Faces and More

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Automatic Neural Processing of Disorder-Related Stimuli in Social Anxiety Disorder: Faces and More
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Schulz, Martin Mothes-Lasch, Thomas Straube

Abstract

It has been proposed that social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with automatic information processing biases resulting in hypersensitivity to signals of social threat such as negative facial expressions. However, the nature and extent of automatic processes in SAD on the behavioral and neural level is not entirely clear yet. The present review summarizes neuroscientific findings on automatic processing of facial threat but also other disorder-related stimuli such as emotional prosody or negative words in SAD. We review initial evidence for automatic activation of the amygdala, insula, and sensory cortices as well as for automatic early electrophysiological components. However, findings vary depending on tasks, stimuli, and neuroscientific methods. Only few studies set out to examine automatic neural processes directly and systematic attempts are as yet lacking. We suggest that future studies should: (1) use different stimulus modalities, (2) examine different emotional expressions, (3) compare findings in SAD with other anxiety disorders, (4) use more sophisticated experimental designs to investigate features of automaticity systematically, and (5) combine different neuroscientific methods (such as functional neuroimaging and electrophysiology). Finally, the understanding of neural automatic processes could also provide hints for therapeutic approaches.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 28%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 50%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 May 2013.
All research outputs
#14,169,350
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,997
of 29,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,505
of 280,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#629
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,492 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 280,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.