ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Corrugator activity reflects integrated simulation and multifaceted evaluation when processing affective language: Frowning responses to reading about emotions of morally good and bad characters.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Corrugator supercilii ("frowning muscle") activity tracks affective valence of linguistic stimuli. According to embodied cognition accounts, this reflects simulation of the emotion at lexical and/or situational levels. Additionally, it may indicate evaluation, i.e., how we feel about an affective event within a context. This study used facial electromyography (fEMG) to examine corrugator responses as participants read short stories. Each story included segments, describing some character's morally good or bad behavior, a behavior rating, and sentence-initial phrases describing the character's positive or negative affective states (e.g., "Mark is frustrated"), followed by the reason for this. Our prior studies showed substantially more frowning when good characters were "frustrated" compared with "happy" but minimal differences for bad characters, suggesting a multiple-drivers account where both simulation and evaluation influence responses. Crucially, they can counteract in the context of bad characters, e.g., "happy" has positive valence but is unfair in context and the opposite applies to "frustrated." To emphasize characters' moral status and amplify fairness-based evaluations, an embedded morality judgment rating task was introduced. We hypothesized stronger frowning for "happy" than "frustrated" bad characters due to fairness considerations now outweighing simulation. However, results revealed increased frowning for "frustrated" bad characters. The rating task might have unexpectedly reduced, rather than boosted, evaluative processing through cognitive interference. Nevertheless, previously observed frowning patterns for moral characters were replicated. These findings support a multiple-drivers model but suggest that evaluative processes are more complex and multifaceted than current models capture, calling for revisions to incorporate these complexities into affective processing theories.
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.