A cross-sectional analysis of mothers' ability to recognize expressed facial emotions in children and its association with maternal alexithymia, depression, parenting styles, and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The ability to recognize emotional facial expressions (EFEs) is an important skill for a mother and may impact her parenting. This ability is innate but affected by multiple factors. Aims: This study aims to study the mother’s ability to recognize a child’s facial emotions and its association with present depressive symptoms, alexithymia, parenting practices, and styles. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five mothers of children being evaluated for academic problems were assessed through purposive sampling at a tertiary care child guidance clinic. The mothers completed the National Institute for Mental Health Child Emotional Faces Picture test, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), Coping with children’s negative emotions scale, and Parenting style questionnaire. Statistical Analysis: Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS Version 21) for Windows was used. Descriptive analysis was carried out using mean and standard deviation. Other tests used for analysis were Student’s t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s Product Moment, and Spearman’s rho. Results: The proportion of EFEs correct responses (PC) was 0.776. The happy EFE had the highest PC and neutral the least. PC of happy EFE correlated positively with emotion-focused reactions and inversely with TAS score and authoritative parenting. PC of sad EFE correlated inversely with TAS subscale of difficulty identifying emotions and positively with expressive encouragement and authoritative style of parenting. PC of angry EFE correlated with expressive encouragement and inversely with distress and minimization reactions. PC of afraid EFE inversely correlated with TAS score, PHQ-9 total score, punitive and distress reactions, and authoritarian parenting and positively with expressive encouragement. PC of neutral EFE correlated with TAS score, minimization reactions, and authoritative parenting style. Conclusions: Impairments in EFE recognition affect mother’s parenting styles and practices. Alexithymia and depressive symptoms can affect the ability to correctly identify EFEs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".