Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33112932›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparing static and dynamic emotion recognition tests: Performance of healthy participants.

Sara Khosdelazad, Lieke S Jorna, Skye McDonald, Sandra E Rakers, Rients B Huitema, Anne M Buunk, Jacoba M Spikman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Sara KhosdelazadDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7674-352X
Lieke S JornaDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6276-539X
Skye McDonaldSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Sandra E RakersDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rients B HuitemaDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anne M BuunkDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jacoba M SpikmanDepartment of Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Facial expressions have a communicatory function and the ability to read them is a prerequisite for understanding feelings and thoughts of other individuals. Impairments in recognition of facial emotional expressions are frequently found in patients with neurological conditions (e.g. stroke, traumatic brain injury, frontotemporal dementia). Hence, a standard neuropsychological assessment should include measurement of emotion recognition. However, there is debate regarding which tests are most suitable. The current study evaluates and compares three different emotion recognition tests. 84 healthy participants were included and assessed with three tests, in varying order: a. Ekman 60 Faces Test (FEEST) b. Emotion Recognition Task (ERT) c. Emotion Evaluation Test (EET). The tests differ in type of stimuli from static photographs (FEEST) to more dynamic stimuli in the form of morphed photographs (ERT) to videos (EET). Comparing performances on the three tests, the lowest total scores (67.3% correct answers) were found for the ERT. Significant, but moderate correlations were found between the total scores of the three tests, but nearly all correlations between the same emotions across different tests were not significant. Furthermore, we found cross-over effects of the FEEST and EET to the ERT; participants attained higher total scores on the ERT when another emotion recognition test had been administered beforehand. Moreover, the ERT proved to be sensitive to the effects of age and education. The present findings indicate that despite some overlap, each emotion recognition test measures a unique part of the construct. The ERT seemed to be the most difficult test: performances were lowest and influenced by differences in age and education and it was the only test that showed a learning effect after practice with other tests. This highlights the importance of appropriate norms.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsRecognition, PsychologyAdolescentAdultEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStatistics, NonparametricYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33112932
PMCPMC7592751

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.