Cited by 22Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFace Recognition and PerceptionNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior

Attachment style dimensions are associated with brain activity in response to gaze interaction

Cecchini, Marco, Iannoni, Maria Elena, Pandolfo, Anna Lucia, Aceto, Paola, Lai, Carlo·2015·Social Neuroscience

Abstract

Aim of the present study was to investigate the time course of brain processes involved in the visual perception of different gaze interactions in woman-child dyads and the association between attachment dimensions and brain activation during the presentation of gaze interactions. The hypothesis was that the woman avoidance will produce a greater activation of primary somatosensory and limbic areas. The attachment styles dimensions avoidant-related will be associated with fronto-limbic brain intensity during the convergence of gaze. Electroencephalogram (EEG) data were recorded using a 256-channel HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net in 44 female subjects (age: 24 ± 2 years). Event-related potential (ERP) components and standardized low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) were analyzed. Participants were administered the attachment style questionnaire before EEG task. A lower P350 latency was found in the fronto-central montage in response to woman avoidance. sLORETA analysis showed a greater intensity of limbic and primary somatosensory areas in response to woman avoidance compared to the others gaze interactions. In response to convergence gaze, the confidence attachment dimension was negatively correlated with the intensities of the right temporal and limbic areas, and the relationships as secondary attachment dimension were positively correlated with the intensities of the bilateral frontal areas and of the left parietal area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470919.2014.998344

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cecchini, M., Iannoni, M. E., Pandolfo, A. L., Aceto, P., & Lai, C.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Corresponding author
Lai, Carlo
Venue
Social Neuroscience
Published
2015-01-08
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
282-293
ISSN
  • 1747-0919 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0927
OpenAlex
W2036099407
Cited by
22
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Keywords
attachment styles, gaze-based interaction, attachment avoidance, attachment security, P350, event-related potentials, limbic system activation, primary somatosensory cortex, sLORETA, brain activity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Male, Object Attachment, Photic Stimulation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review