MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892757743 · doi:10.1167/18.10.612

Representing Facial Expressions in Visual Working Memory: A Novel Adaptation of the Continuous Response Paradigm

2018· article· en· W2892757743 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine J. Mondloch, Abbie L. Coy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerSadnessPsychologyFacial expressionPerceptionCognitive psychologyEmotion perceptionFace (sociological concept)Emotion classificationSocial psychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies investigating emotion perception have used dichotomous response measures whereby each response is either correct or incorrect. We used a novel continuous response paradigm to investigate the precision of visual working memory for expressions of sadness, anger, and fear and to investigate whether biases in errors (e.g., incorrectly perceiving angry faces as fearful rather than sad) are evident early in visual processing. We created an "emotion wheel" by morphing three anchor expressions (anger/sad/fear) in 4% steps. On each trial (n = 750), a target face (an anchor or any randomly selected morph) appeared for 500ms. After a 900ms delay, participants (n=29) located the target face on the emotion wheel (comprised of 75 faces representing continuous variation in emotion). We measured the magnitude (degrees between target and response) and direction (e.g., towards or away from particular emotions) of response error. The magnitude of response error varied with proximity of the target to an anchor expression (smaller for unambiguous [target contained >75% of one emotion, m = 47°] vs. ambiguous [target contained < 75% of either emotion, m = 60°] targets, p < .001) and across expressions (smaller for unambiguous angry compared to sad or fearful expressions, ps < .001; smaller for ambiguous angry/fear and fear/sad blends than angry/sad blends, ps < .01). The direction of response biases for ambiguous targets favored threat-related expressions. Participants were biased towards anger and fear when viewing anger/sad and fear/sad blends, ps < .05; no bias was observed for angry/fearful blends. Collectively, our findings suggest prioritization of both direct (angry) and indirect (fearful) threat, as opposed to merely negative (sad) faces. Our results have important implications for emotion theory and for understanding threat-related biases in emotion processing. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207