Auditory smiles trigger unconscious facial imitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 [1Darwin C. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Oxford University Press, USA (1998), 1872Crossref Google Scholar]. The perception–action loop responsible for the fast and spontaneous imitation of a smile is considered a core component of social cognition [2Niedenthal P.M. Mermillod M. Maringer M. Hess U. The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression.Behav. Brain Sci. 2010; 33: 417-433Crossref PubMed Scopus (379) Google Scholar]. 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 [3Drahota A. Costall A. Reddy V. The vocal communication of different kinds of smile.Speech Commun. 2008; 50: 278-287Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar]. 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".