Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37813970›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Drift-diffusion modeling reveals that masked faces are preconceived as unfriendly.

Martijn J Mulder, Franziska Prummer, David Terburg, J Leon Kenemans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Martijn J MulderDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.j.mulder@uu.nl.
Franziska PrummerSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
David TerburgDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Leon KenemansDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLLancaster University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has become a daily routine. Studies have shown that face masks increase the ambiguity of facial expressions which not only affects (the development of) emotion recognition, but also interferes with social interaction and judgement. To disambiguate facial expressions, we rely on perceptual (stimulus-driven) as well as preconceptual (top-down) processes. However, it is unknown which of these two mechanisms accounts for the misinterpretation of masked expressions. To investigate this, we asked participants (N = 136) to decide whether ambiguous (morphed) facial expressions, with or without a mask, were perceived as friendly or unfriendly. To test for the independent effects of perceptual and preconceptual biases we fitted a drift-diffusion model (DDM) to the behavioral data of each participant. Results show that face masks induce a clear loss of information leading to a slight perceptual bias towards friendly choices, but also a clear preconceptual bias towards unfriendly choices for masked faces. These results suggest that, although face masks can increase the perceptual friendliness of faces, people have the prior preconception to interpret masked faces as unfriendly.

Indexed as

COVID-19DiffusionEmotionsHumansJudgmentPandemics

Identifiers

PMID37813970
PMCPMC10562405
OpenAlexW4387452565

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.