ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Validation of the Emotionally Congruent and Incongruent Face-Body Static Set (ECIFBSS).
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of cognitive load in automatic integration of emotional information from face and body.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Frequently, we perceive emotional information through multiple channels (e.g., face, voice, posture). These cues interact, facilitating emotional perception when congruent (similar across channels) compared to incongruent (different). Most previous studies on this congruency effect used stimuli from different sets, compromising their quality. In this context, we created and validated a new static stimulus set (ECIFBSS) featuring 1952 facial and body expressions of basic emotions in congruent and incongruent situations. We photographed 40 actors expressing facial emotions and body postures (anger, disgust, happiness, neutral, fear, surprise, and sadness) in both congruent and incongruent situations. The validation was conducted in two parts. In the first part, 76 participants performed a recognition task on facial and bodily expressions separately. In the second part, 40 participants performed the same recognition task, along with an evaluation of four features: intensity, authenticity, arousal, and valence. All emotions (face and body) were well recognized. Consistent with the literature, facial emotions were recognized better than body postures. Happiness was the most recognized facial emotion, while fear was the least. Among body expressions, anger had the highest recognition, while disgust was the least accurately recognized. Finally, facial and bodily expressions were considered moderately authentic, and the evaluation of intensity, valence, and arousal aligned with the dimensional model. The ECIFBSS offers static stimuli for studying facial and body expressions of basic emotions, providing a new tool to explore integrating emotional information from various channels and their reciprocal influence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39753781What 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.