Visual information extraction for static and dynamic facial expression of emotions: an eye-tracking experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human faces convey a great deal of information for human social interactions. In this wealth of information, rapid and exact inferences about what others think or feel play a crucial role in tuning our behaviors. Most studies aimed at identifying the visual processes and strategies subtending facial emotion recognition have used static stimuli. However, there is a growing body of evidence that recognizing facial emotion in the real-world involves motion (e.g., Kamachi et al., 2001; Ambadar, Schooler, & Cohn, 2005). The goal of the present study was to compare eye movements during the recognition of facial expression of emotions in static and dynamic stimuli. We used the stimuli from the STOIC database (Roy et al., submitted; the database includes static and dynamic facial expression of emotion of the six basic categories–fear, happiness, sadness, disgust, anger, and surprise–plus pain and neutral). Twenty participants each completed 320 trials (4 blocks of 80 stimuli, containing either static of dynamic stimuli). After each 500-ms stimulus, participants had to recognize the displayed emotion. Participants wore the EyeLink II head-mounted eye-tracking device while looking at the photos or videos showing different emotions. Participants were more accurate with dynamic than with static stimuli (83% vs. 78%). Average fixation maps were computed for each emotion and stimulus condition using the correct answers only. Eye movements clearly differed for the static and dynamic stimuli: For the dynamic faces, the gaze of participants remained close to the center of the face, whereas, for the static faces, their gaze rapidly spread outward. This was true for all the facial expressions tested. We will argue that the ampler eye movements observed with static faces result from a ventral-stream compensation strategy due to the relative lack of information useful to the dorsal-stream.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".