Does co-presence affect the way we perceive and respond to emotional interactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared how two virtual display conditions of human body expressions influenced explicit and implicit dimensions of emotion perception and response behavior in women and men. Two avatars displayed emotional interactions (angry, sad, affectionate, happy) in a "pictorial" condition depicting the emotional interactive partners on a screen within a virtual environment and a "visual" condition allowing participants to share space with the avatars, thereby enhancing co-presence and agency. Subsequently to stimulus presentation, explicit valence perception and response tendency (i.e. the explicit tendency to avoid or approach the situation) were assessed on rating scales. Implicit responses, i.e. postural and autonomic responses towards the observed interactions were measured by means of postural displacement and changes in skin conductance. Results showed that self-reported presence differed between pictorial and visual conditions, however, it was not correlated with skin conductance responses. Valence perception was only marginally influenced by the virtual condition and not at all by explicit response behavior. There were gender-mediated effects on postural response tendencies as well as gender differences in explicit response behavior but not in valence perception. Exploratory analyses revealed a link between valence perception and preferred behavioral response in women but not in men. We conclude that the display condition seems to influence automatic motivational tendencies but not higher level cognitive evaluations. Moreover, intragroup differences in explicit and implicit response behavior highlight the importance of individual factors beyond gender.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".