MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089783729 · doi:10.1167/10.7.587

Relationships Among Emotion Categories: Emotion Aftereffects In High-Functioning Adults with Autism

2010· article· en· W2089783729 on OpenAlexaff
M. D. Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDisgustAngerSurpriseEmotion classificationPerceptionCognitive psychologyFacial expressionEmotional expressionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual aftereffects have been used to determine psychological relationships between perceived emotional facial expressions (Rutherford, Chattha & Krysko, 2007). Findings indicate that there is an asymmetrical relationship among perceived emotion categories: numerous negative emotions oppose few positive emotions. People with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are believed to have atypical perception of emotional facial expressions (e.g. Rutherford & McIntosh, 2007). Two experiments use visual aftereffects to probe the psychological relationships among emotion categories in those with ASD. Experiment 1 was designed to test whether adults with ASD experienced aftereffects when viewing emotional facial expressions. Happy or Sad faces were the adapting image and a neutral image of the same model was the probe image. 19 ASD and 19 control participants saw the adapting image for 45s and the probe image for 800ms. Observers chose a label in a 4 AFC paradigm to describe the image. Clear evidence of aftereffects resulted. Experiment 2 was designed to probe relationships among the 6 basic emotions. Adapting images were the 6 basic emotions (one per trial) and the probe image was a neutral image of the same model. Response was obtained via 6 AFC task in which observers chose one of the six basic emotion labels to describe the probe image. The control group replicated previous findings. The ASD group showed evidence of afterimages, but different patterns of opposition: although happy opposed sad and sad opposed happy, the opposite of anger, fear and disgust was sad, whereas it was happy for the control group. Also, the opposite of surprise was predominantly disgust, for this group. This study is the first demonstration that we know of of visual aftereffects in a group with ASD. It also provides evidence that aftereffects can be used as a tool to reveal idiosyncratic organization of perceptual categories in special populations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207