MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146369909 · doi:10.15695/vurj.v8i0.3570

Age-related Differences in Emotion Recognition Ability: Visual and Auditory Modalities

2012· article· en· W2146369909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sishir Mannava

Bibliographic record

VenueVanderbilt Undergraduate Research Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyModalitiesEmotion recognitionStimulus modalityDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyMedicineSensory systemNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotion recognition is an important aspect of social interaction. Deficits in emotion recognition have been tied to poor social competence, interpersonal functioning, and communication along with a reduced quality of life and inappropriate social behavior. Recent experimental evidence suggests that emotion recognition ability across modalities seems to change in an age-dependent way, with deficits specifically noted for negative emotion recognition. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to assess emotion recognition ability in both the visual and auditory modalities in healthy elderly patients versus healthy young patients to test the hypothesis that deficits in emotion recognition ability are age-related and increase with age across visual and auditory modalities. The secondary purpose of this study is to assess valence-specific emotion recognition ability to test the hypothesis that increased deficits for elderly individuals as compared to young healthy subjects occur for negative emotion recognition specifically. We examined the ability to recognize emotion in the auditory and visual modality in two groups of patients: healthy elderly subjects and healthy young subjects. The Montreal Affective Voices task (MAV), the Distorted Tunes task (DTT), the Awareness of Social Inference test (TASIT), and the Baron-Cohen Mind in the Eyes Test (EYES) were used to gauge emotion recognition ability. For the visual tasks (TASIT and EYES), the elderly subjects and young subjects did not have significant differences in performance. In addition, a significant difference was also not found for the DTT, indicating that both populations had intact lower-level auditory processing abilities. Significant differences were found between the two populations on the MAV task in both baseline accuracy and valence-specific performance. These findings suggest that age-related deficits in emotion recognition may be specific to the recognition of auditory emotion.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVanderbilt Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207