Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42591109›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Mohammad Ebrahim Katebi, Mohammad Hossein Ghafari, Tara Ghafari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mohammad Ebrahim Katebi *School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Hossein Ghafari *School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tara GhafariDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Emotion recognition through facial expressions is crucial for interpreting social cues. However, it is often influenced by biases, i.e., systematic recognition advantages for particular emotions. Nevertheless, these biases are inconsistently reported across studies, likely due to methodological variations which underline the necessity for a standardized approach. Traditional face morphing methods can create unnatural-looking stimuli, and may confound the interpretation of emotions. To address this issue, we here introduce Methods: We employed neutral-anchored morphing and neural-network-generated masks to reduce morphing artifacts and preserve the coherence of the depicted expressions. We validated our stimulus set by having participants rate each face on a 9-point scale ranging from angry to happy, assessing the perceived emotional intensity. Reliability was assessed through a two-week follow-up rating session with a subgroup of the same participants. Results: Discussion: By introducing a controlled and empirically evaluated stimulus set of morphed emotional faces,

Indexed as

facial emotional expressionsmorphed stimuliNimStimSTEMorphstimulus set

Identifiers

PMID42591109
PMCPMC13461392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.