The impact of contextual valence and self-relevance on electrocortical and behavioural responses to faces with direct and averted gaze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are rarely exposed to faces in the absence of situational context. Previous ERP research using faces primed with contextual sentences suggests that valence and self-relevance modulate electrocortical responses to faces. However, the time-course of these effects is unclear and no studies have investigated whether they interact with another key sign of self-relevance: whether the face is looking at or away from the participant. We used emotional sentences to vary the context within which neutral faces were placed. These sentences referred to the face having a positive or negative opinion (valence manipulation) of the participant or of someone else (self-relevance manipulation). Participants read each sentence before viewing the face that the sentence referred to, and faces had either direct or averted gaze (gaze manipulation). Eye-tracking was used to ensure that participants read the sentences and enforced fixation to the face, while ERPs were recorded. In a preliminary sample of 15, mean amplitude analyses of 100ms time-windows from 150-750ms after face onset were performed on a subset of occipito-temporal electrodes to track the time-course of contextual modulation. Self-relevance elicited a larger amplitude response for other versus self-relevant context on the right hemisphere, consistently from 250 to 650ms. Gaze direction interacted with valence consistently from 250 to 750ms for faces in the other-relevant, but not self-relevant context. In the other-relevant positive context, direct gaze produced a smaller amplitude response than averted gaze. In contrast, direct gaze produced a larger amplitude response than averted gaze in the other-relevant negative context. Participants also rated faces in a self-relevant context as more arousing than faces in the other-relevant context, suggesting a potential arousal-based mechanism for self-relevance effects. These results indicate that the contextual cues of self-relevance and valence impact perception of neutral faces in a complex way depending on gaze direction. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".