ArticleDevelopmental psychology2019
The promises and perils of automated facial action coding in studying children's emotions.
Article in Developmental psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Achievement emotions in kindergarten: the association of solution accuracy with discrete joy, sadness, and surprise.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- A Critique of Automated Approaches to Code Facial Expressions: What Do Researchers Need to Know?Affective science · 2023Review
- Positive, negative, neutral-or unknown? The perceived valence of emotions expressed by young autistic children in a novel context suited to autism.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022Article
- Come on Baby, Light My Fire: Sparking Further Research in Socio-Affective Mechanisms of Music Using Computational Advancements.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Progress in understanding the emergence of human emotion.Developmental psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Computer vision algorithms have made tremendous advances in recent years. We now have algorithms that can detect and recognize objects, faces, and even facial actions in still images and video sequences. This is wonderful news for researchers that need to code facial articulations in large data sets of images and videos, because this task is time consuming and can only be completed by expert coders, making it very expensive. The availability of computer algorithms that can automatically code facial actions in extremely large data sets also opens the door to studies in psychology and neuroscience that were not previously possible, for example, to study the development of the production of facial expressions from infancy to adulthood within and across cultures. Unfortunately, there is a lack of methodological understanding on how these algorithms should and should not be used, and on how to select the most appropriate algorithm for each study. This article aims to address this gap in the literature. Specifically, we present several methodologies for use in hypothesis-based and exploratory studies, explain how to select the computer algorithms that best fit to the requirements of our experimental design, and detail how to evaluate whether the automatic annotations provided by existing algorithms are trustworthy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.