ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Automated facial expression measurement in a longitudinal sample of 4- and 8-month-olds: Baby FaceReader 9 and manual coding of affective expressions.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. 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.
- Smiling in time: the interactive development of infant smiling with mothers, fathers and strangers.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating Open-Source Solutions for Computerized Inference of Infant Facial Affect.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Automated detection of mouth opening in newborn infants.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- AI-Based Facial Emotion Analysis in Infants During Complimentary Feeding: A Descriptive Study of Maternal and Infant Influences.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Facial affect and arousal as a complement to gaze measures in infant speech sound perception studies.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facial expressions are among the earliest behaviors infants use to express emotional states, and are crucial to preverbal social interaction. Manual coding of infant facial expressions, however, is laborious and poses limitations to replicability. Recent developments in computer vision have advanced automated facial expression analyses in adults, providing reproducible results at lower time investment. Baby FaceReader 9 is commercially available software for automated measurement of infant facial expressions, but has received little validation. We compared Baby FaceReader 9 output to manual micro-coding of positive, negative, or neutral facial expressions in a longitudinal dataset of 58 infants at 4 and 8 months of age during naturalistic face-to-face interactions with the mother, father, and an unfamiliar adult. Baby FaceReader 9's global emotional valence formula yielded reasonable classification accuracy (AUC = .81) for discriminating manually coded positive from negative/neutral facial expressions; however, the discrimination of negative from neutral facial expressions was not reliable (AUC = .58). Automatically detected a priori action unit (AU) configurations for distinguishing positive from negative facial expressions based on existing literature were also not reliable. A parsimonious approach using only automatically detected smiling (AU12) yielded good performance for discriminating positive from negative/neutral facial expressions (AUC = .86). Likewise, automatically detected brow lowering (AU3+AU4) reliably distinguished neutral from negative facial expressions (AUC = .79). These results provide initial support for the use of selected automatically detected individual facial actions to index positive and negative affect in young infants, but shed doubt on the accuracy of complex a priori formulas.
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.