ArticleBrain sciences2020
Social Perception of Faces: Brain Imaging and Subjective Ratings.
Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alfa-PVP: Why Does Finland Stick Out?Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2026Article
- The Power of Time: Editorial on the Advantages of Electroencephalography (EEG) and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) in Affective and Cognitive Neuroscience.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- From Calibrated Morphs to Facial Stimuli: The Beauty of a Statistically Informed Picture.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025Article
- Gray hair influences perceived age and social perceptions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Neurophysiological Correlates of Expert Knowledge: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Study about Law-Relevant Versus Law-Irrelevant Terms.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Priors and prejudice: hierarchical predictive processing in intergroup perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate how a female face is perceived in terms of its attractiveness, dominance, health, femininity-masculinity, and maturity in direct relation to the body fat percentage (BFP) conveyed by the face. To compare how young adults (ages 18 to 35) respond to different levels of body fat percentage both subjectively and objectively we collected survey ratings and electroencephalography (EEG) data across five different levels of BFP from 40 participants. We adapted the experimental design from a prior behavioral study and used calibrated and morphed female face images of five different BFP levels. The results of the survey are in consensus with the previous study and assessed to be a successful replication. From the EEG data, event-related potentials (ERPs) were extracted from one electrode location (right occipitotemporal brain region) known to be particularly sensitive to face-stimuli. We found statistically significant differences in the amplitudes of the P200 component (194 ms post stimulus onset) between the thickest face and all four other BFP conditions, and in the amplitudes of the N300 component (274 ms post stimulus onset) between the average face and three other BFP conditions. As expected, there were no significant differences among the N170 amplitudes of all five BFP conditions since this ERP component simply reflects the processing of faces in general. From these results, we can infer that holistic face encoding characterized by the N170 component in the right occipitotemporal area is followed by serial evaluative processes, whose categorical and qualitative matrix and spatiotemporal dynamics should be further explored in future studies, especially in relation to the social constructs that were focused on in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.