MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2438865413 · doi:10.1038/srep27798

Context sensitivity in the detection of changes in facial emotion

2016· article· en· W2438865413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuichi Yamashita, Tomomi Fujimura, Kentaro Katahira, Manabu Honda, Masato Okada, Kazuo Okanoya

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsFacial expressionAlexithymiaCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)PsychologyValence (chemistry)CognitionToronto Alexithymia ScaleSocial psychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In social contexts, reading subtle changes in others' facial expressions is a crucial communication skill. To measure this ability, we developed an expression-change detection task, wherein a series of pictures of changes in an individual's facial expressions within contextual scenes were presented. The results demonstrated that the detection of subtle changes was highly sensitive to contextual stimuli. That is, participants identified the direction of facial-expression changes more accurately and more quickly when they were 'appropriate'-consistent with the valence of the contextual stimulus change-than when they were 'inappropriate'. Moreover, individual differences in sensitivity to contextual stimuli were correlated with scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, a commonly used measure of alexithymia tendencies. These results suggest that the current behavioural task might facilitate investigations of the role of context in human social cognition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→