Should perception of emotions be classified according to threat detection rather than emotional valence? An updated meta-analysis for a whole-brain atlas of emotional faces processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human navigation of social interactions relies on the processing of emotion on faces. This meta-analysis aimed to produce an updated brain atlas of emotional face processing from whole-brain studies based on a single emotional face-viewing paradigm (PROSPERO CRD42022251548). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from May 2008 to October 2021. We used seed-based d mapping with permutation of subject images to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging contrasts between emotional (e.g., angry, happy) and neutral faces. We conducted agglomerative hierarchical clustering of meta-analytic map contrasts of emotional faces relative to neutral faces. We investigated lateralization of emotional face processing. RESULTS: From 5549 studies identified, 55 data sets (1489 healthy participants) met our inclusion criteria. Relative to neutral faces, we found extensive activation clusters by fearful faces in the right inferior temporal gyrus, right fusiform area, left putamen and amygdala, right parahippocampalgyrus and cerebellum; we found smaller activation clusters by angry faces in the right cerebellum and right middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and by disgusted faces in the left MTG. Happy and sad faces did not reach statistical significance. Clustering analyses showed similar activation patterns of fearful and angry faces; activation patterns of happy and sad faces showed the least correlation with other emotional faces. Emotional face processing was predominantly left-lateralized in the amygdala and anterior insula, and right-lateralized in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. LIMITATIONS: Reliance on discretized effect sizes based on peak coordinate location instead of statistical brain maps, and the varying level of statistical threshold reporting from original studies, could lead to underdetection of smaller clusters of activation. CONCLUSION: Processing of emotional faces appeared to be oriented toward identifying threats on faces, from highest (i.e., angry or fearful faces) to lowest level (i.e., happy or sad faces), with a more complex lateralization pattern than previously theorized. Emotional faces may be processed in latent grouping but organized by threat content rather than emotional valence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".