Sex Effect in the Temporal Perception of Faces Expressing Anger and Shame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate sex-related variations in the perception of the duration of emotional stimuli (human faces). Twenty male and 20 female participants estimated the duration of angry, ashamed and neutral faces marking 0.4 to 1.6 s intervals. Female faces were used in one session, and male faces in the other. Compared to the angry faces condition, intervals were underestimated when ashamed faces were shown. However, the intervals in neither conditions were significantly overestimated or underestimated compared to the neutral condition. Even more critical is the fact that there was an underestimation by male participants of the duration of male faces compared to female faces; and female participants overestimated the duration in the anger condition, compared with the shame condition, only when male faces were presented. Moreover, the emotional effects on the participants’ performance were correlated to inter-individual differences in empathic abilities. The findings are discussed in terms of sex differences, of social context, and of how attention is solicited and arousal generated by emotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".