Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35496070›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

Configural but Not Featural Face Information Is Associated With Automatic Processing.

Hailing Wang, Enguang Chen, JingJing Li, Fanglin Ji, Yujing Lian, Shimin Fu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hailing WangSchool of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
Enguang ChenSchool of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
JingJing LiSchool of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
Fanglin JiDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yujing LianSchool of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
Shimin FuDepartment of Psychology and Center for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Configural face processing precedes featural face processing under the face-attended condition, but their temporal sequence in the absence of attention is unclear. The present study investigated this issue by recording visual mismatch negativity (vMMN), which indicates the automatic processing of visual information under unattended conditions. Participants performed a central cross size change detection task, in which random sequences of faces were presented peripherally, in an oddball paradigm. In Experiment 1, configural and featural faces (deviant stimuli) were presented infrequently among original faces (standard stimuli). In Experiment 2, configural faces were presented infrequently among featural faces, or vice versa. The occipital-temporal vMMN emerged in the 200-360 ms latency range for configural, but not featural, face information. More specifically, configural face information elicited a substantial vMMN component in the 200-360 ms range in Experiment 1. This result was replicated in the 320-360 ms range in Experiment 2, especially in the right hemisphere. These results suggest that configural, but not featural, face information is associated with automatic processing and provides new electrophysiological evidence for the different mechanisms underlying configural and featural face processing under unattended conditions.

Indexed as

automatic processingconfiguralfacefeaturalvisual mismatch negativity (vMMN)

Identifiers

PMID35496070
PMCPMC9045007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.