↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences in face identity processing

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 365)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
13 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Individual differences in face identity processing
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0112-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer M. McCaffery, David J. Robertson, Andrew W. Young, A. Mike Burton

Abstract

We investigated the relationships between individual differences in different aspects of face-identity processing, using the Glasgow Face Matching Test (GFMT) as a measure of unfamiliar face perception, the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) as a measure of new face learning, and the Before They Were Famous task (BTWF) as a measure of familiar face recognition. These measures were integrated into two separate studies examining the relationship between face processing and other tasks. For Study 1 we gathered participants' subjective ratings of their own face perception abilities. In Study 2 we used additional measures of perceptual and cognitive abilities, and personality factors to place individual differences in a broader context. Performance was significantly correlated across the three face-identity tasks in both studies, suggesting some degree of commonality of underlying mechanisms. For Study 1 the participants' self-ratings correlated poorly with performance, reaching significance only for judgements of familiar face recognition. In Study 2 there were few associations between face tasks and other measures, with task-level influences seeming to account for the small number of associations present. In general, face tasks correlated with each other, but did not show an overall relation with other perceptual, cognitive or personality tests. Our findings are consistent with the existence of a general face-perception factor, able to account for around 25% of the variance in scores. However, other relatively task-specific influences are also clearly operating.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 56%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Linguistics 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. 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 10 February 2022.
All research outputs
#327,836
of 25,478,886 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#24
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,132
of 342,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,478,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 342,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.