Confusion of fear and surprise: A test of the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis with eye movement monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of the basic emotional facial expressions, fear is typically less accurately recognised as a result of being confused with surprise. According to the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis, the difficulty in recognising fear could be attributed to the similar visual configuration with surprise. In effect, they share more muscle movements than they possess distinctive ones. The main goal of the current study was to test the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis in the recognition of fear and surprise using eye movement recording and by manipulating the distinctiveness between expressions. Results revealed that when the brow lowerer is the only distinctive feature between expressions, accuracy is lower, participants spend more time looking at stimuli and they make more comparisons between expressions than when stimuli include the lip stretcher. These results not only support the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis but extend its definition by suggesting that it is not solely the number of distinctive features that is important but also their qualitative value.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it