ArticleJMIR mental health2024
Capacity of Generative AI to Interpret Human Emotions From Visual and Textual Data: Pilot Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- "It's Not Only Attention We Need": Systematic Review of Large Language Models in Mental Health Care.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating and addressing demographic disparities in medical large language models: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in psychiatry and mental health care: a systematic review.Acta neuropsychiatrica · 2024Pooled it
- Generative AI emotion recognition from bodily gestures and vocal tone reveals modality-specific performance and positivity bias.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Benchmarking large language models against practicing clinicians on psychopathological assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of the MentiParent AI chatbot for training parental reflective functioning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Couple and Family Therapy: Introduction of the AI Competencies.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2026Article
- Empowering mental health professionals in asynchronous online psychotherapy with GenAI.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- Evaluation of cross-ethnic emotion recognition capabilities in multimodal large language models using the reading the mind in the eyes test.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI outperforms humans in establishing interpersonal closeness in emotionally engaging interactions, but only when labelled as human.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- AVERE: Improving Audiovisual Emotion Reasoning with Preference Optimization.... International Conference on Learning Representations · 2026Article
- Generative AI as a de facto mental health provider: a policy brief and urgent call for regulation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence to measure and predict patient values and preferences: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- H3-MOSAIC: multimodal generative AI for semantic place detection from high-frequency GPS on H3 grids in mental health geomatics.International journal of health geographics · 2025Article
- Evaluating the performance of general purpose large language models in identifying human facial emotions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- AI-generated images of familiar faces are indistinguishable from real photographs.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Mentalizing Without a Mind: Psychotherapeutic Potential of Generative AI.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Intelligent emotion sensing using BERT BiLSTM and generative AI for proactive customer care.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMentalization, which is integral to human cognitive processes, pertains to the interpretation of one's own and others' mental states, including emotions, beliefs, and intentions. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the prominence of large language models in mental health applications, questions persist about their aptitude in emotional comprehension. The prior iteration of the large language model from OpenAI, ChatGPT-3.5, demonstrated an advanced capacity to interpret emotions from textual data, surpassing human benchmarks. Given the introduction of ChatGPT-4, with its enhanced visual processing capabilities, and considering Google Bard's existing visual functionalities, a rigorous assessment of their proficiency in visual mentalizing is warranted.
objectiveThe aim of the research was to critically evaluate the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard with regard to their competence in discerning visual mentalizing indicators as contrasted with their textual-based mentalizing abilities.
methodsThe Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test developed by Baron-Cohen and colleagues was used to assess the models' proficiency in interpreting visual emotional indicators. Simultaneously, the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale was used to evaluate the large language models' aptitude in textual mentalizing. Collating data from both tests provided a holistic view of the mentalizing capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Bard.
resultsChatGPT-4, displaying a pronounced ability in emotion recognition, secured scores of 26 and 27 in 2 distinct evaluations, significantly deviating from a random response paradigm (P<.001). These scores align with established benchmarks from the broader human demographic. Notably, ChatGPT-4 exhibited consistent responses, with no discernible biases pertaining to the sex of the model or the nature of the emotion. In contrast, Google Bard's performance aligned with random response patterns, securing scores of 10 and 12 and rendering further detailed analysis redundant. In the domain of textual analysis, both ChatGPT and Bard surpassed established benchmarks from the general population, with their performances being remarkably congruent.
conclusionsChatGPT-4 proved its efficacy in the domain of visual mentalizing, aligning closely with human performance standards. Although both models displayed commendable acumen in textual emotion interpretation, Bard's capabilities in visual emotion interpretation necessitate further scrutiny and potential refinement. This study stresses the criticality of ethical AI development for emotional recognition, highlighting the need for inclusive data, collaboration with patients and mental health experts, and stringent governmental oversight to ensure transparency and protect patient privacy.
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.