ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Recognition of facial expressions from minimal five-point-light displays.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facial expression recognition depends on both structural features (e.g., eye shape) and dynamic cues (e.g., muscle movements). However, the relative contribution of these information sources remains unclear, partly due to methodological challenges in isolating kinematic from configural information. Existing point-light display paradigms, while useful, typically employ numerous markers that still enable structural face recovery. Here, we introduce and validate the "Clepsydra" model-a minimal five-point configuration that captures the six basic emotions using markers on the eyebrows (×2), mouth corners (×2), and nose (×1). Stimuli derived from authentic facial expressions were presented to 91 participants in both point-light display (PLD) and full light (FL) conditions. Results showed above-chance recognition for five emotions in the PLD condition: happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, and sadness, while fear remained at chance level. Confusion matrix analyses revealed emotion-specific patterns, reflecting the diagnostic value of specific facial muscle movements (i.e., Action Units, AUs, as defined by the Facial Action Coding System): fear was primarily confused with surprise (sharing upper-face Action Units), while anger and disgust showed reciprocal misclassifications. These findings demonstrate that extremely sparse dynamic information can support emotion recognition, though with marked emotion-specific differences reflecting the diagnostic value of specific Action Units. The Clepsydra model offers a promising tool for isolating kinematic contributions to facial expression processing, with implications for testing sensorimotor simulation accounts and designing future minimal display paradigms.
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.