Facial representations of complex affective states combining pain and a negative emotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is rarely communicated alone, as it is often accompanied by emotions such as anger or sadness. Communicating these affective states involves shared representations. However, how an individual conceptually represents these combined states must first be tested. The objective of this study was to measure the interaction between pain and negative emotions on two types of facial representations of these states, namely visual (i.e., interactive virtual agents; VAs) and sensorimotor (i.e., one's production of facial configurations). Twenty-eight participants (15 women) read short written scenarios involving only pain or a combined experience of pain and a negative emotion (anger, disgust, fear, or sadness). They produced facial configurations representing these experiences on the faces of the VAs and on their face (own production or imitation of VAs). The results suggest that affective states related to a direct threat to the body (i.e., anger, disgust, and pain) share a similar facial representation, while those that present no immediate danger (i.e., fear and sadness) differ. Although visual and sensorimotor representations of these states provide congruent affective information, they are differently influenced by factors associated with the communication cycle. These findings contribute to our understanding of pain communication in different affective contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".