Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37427421›Full record

ArticlePerception2023

Emotion category-modulated interpretation bias in perceiving ambiguous facial expressions.

Emily Todd, Shaini Subendran, George Wright, Kun Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perception, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Emily ToddUniversity of Lincoln, UK.
Shaini SubendranUniversity of Lincoln, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-9634-9840
George WrightUniversity of Lincoln, UK.
Kun GuoUniversity of Lincoln, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6765-1957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to prototypical facial expressions, we show less perceptual tolerance in perceiving vague expressions by demonstrating an interpretation bias, such as more frequent perception of anger or happiness when categorizing ambiguous expressions of angry and happy faces that are morphed in different proportions and displayed under high- or low-quality conditions. However, it remains unclear whether this interpretation bias is specific to emotion categories or reflects a general negativity versus positivity bias and whether the degree of this bias is affected by the valence or category of two morphed expressions. These questions were examined in two eye-tracking experiments by systematically manipulating expression ambiguity and image quality in fear- and sad-happiness faces (Experiment 1) and by directly comparing anger-, fear-, sadness-, and disgust-happiness expressions (Experiment 2). We found that increasing expression ambiguity and degrading image quality induced a general negativity versus positivity bias in expression categorization. The degree of negativity bias, the associated reaction time and face-viewing gaze allocation were further manipulated by different expression combinations. It seems that although we show a viewing condition-dependent bias in interpreting vague facial expressions that display valence-contradicting expressive cues, it appears that the perception of these ambiguous expressions is guided by a categorical process similar to that involved in perceiving prototypical expressions.

Indexed as

EmotionsFacial ExpressionAngerFearHappinessHumansexpression ambiguityexpression categorizationfacial expressiongaze behaviourinterpretation bias

Identifiers

PMID37427421
PMCPMC10510303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.