↓ Skip to main content

Sex Differences in Emotion Recognition and Working Memory Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Sex Differences in Emotion Recognition and Working Memory Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahmi Saylik, Evren Raman, Andre J. Szameitat

Abstract

It is proposed that emotional and cognitive functions may be differentiated based on sex. However, it is still unknown whether this assumption could be generalized for all emotional faces and working memory (WM) functions. To examine this, 50 females, and 60 males performed an emotion recognition task, consisting of a series of emotional faces as well as three working memory tasks from Cambridge Neuropsychological test battery (CANTAB); namely, spatial working memory (SWM), stocking of Cambridge (SOC), and intra/extradimensional shifts tasks (IED). The results found that females had faster response times in recognition of both positive and negative faces as compared to males. Furthermore, it was observed that while females were better on SWM task processing, males performed better on IED and four move SOC tasks, illustrating that processing of WM components may differentiate by sex. It has been concluded that emotional and cognitive functions are indeed sensitive to sex differences.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 37%
Neuroscience 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,515,353
of 26,555,952 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,897
of 35,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,064
of 346,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#268
of 722 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,555,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 346,713 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 722 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 62% of its contemporaries.