MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883535051 · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.084

Auditory smiles trigger unconscious facial imitation

2018· erratum· en· W2883535051 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Arias, Pascal Belin, Jean‐Julien Aucouturier

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Biology · 2018
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsFacial expressionImitationGestureEmbodied cognitionPerceptionAffect (linguistics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyConversationFacial musclesCommunicationBiological motionUnconscious mindLinguisticsComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smiles, produced by the bilateral contraction of the zygomatic major muscles, are one of the most powerful expressions of positive affect and affiliation and also one of the earliest to develop [1]. The perception-action loop responsible for the fast and spontaneous imitation of a smile is considered a core component of social cognition [2]. In humans, social interaction is overwhelmingly vocal, and the visual cues of a smiling face co-occur with audible articulatory changes on the speaking voice [3]. Yet remarkably little is known about how such 'auditory smiles' are processed and reacted to. We have developed a voice transformation technique that selectively simulates the spectral signature of phonation with stretched lips and report here how we have used this technique to study facial reactions to smiled and non-smiled spoken sentences, finding that listeners' zygomatic muscles tracked auditory smile gestures even when they did not consciously detect them.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent BiologySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207