MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402905649 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.916

Gender differences in the encoding and decoding of pain facial expressions.

2024· article· en· W4402905649 on OpenAlexaff
Arianne Richer, Camille Saumure, Daniel Fiset, Zoé Glardon, Caroline Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncoding (memory)Decoding methodsFacial expressionPsychologyCognitive psychologyAudiologyComputer scienceCommunicationMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facial expressions are crucial for assessing others' affective states. However, pain facial expressions (PFE) are poorly recognized, often confused with other negative affective states (Kappesser & Williams, 2002) and less easily perceived in women's faces (Riva et al., 2011). Studies have revealed various configurations of PFE (Kunz & Lautenbacher, 2014). Yet, it is unclear whether some of these configurations are easier to recognize than others–such differences may in part explain the disparities in perceived pain as a function of face gender. This study explored potential gender differences in the configurations of PFE (encoding) as well as their perception by external observers (decoding). We used the Delaware Pain Database (DPD; Mende-Siedlecki et al., 2020), containing 225 pictures of White individuals posing PFE. To investigate potential differences in PFE encoding between men and women, we used OpenFace to measure the activation levels of 17 action units (AUs) in those pictures. A principal component analysis indicated five main groups of AUs with correlated activations. Most importantly, the first component included AUs typically associated with PFE, and was more prominent in PFE of men than women. To verify if PFE are decoded differently as a function of face gender, we used ratings openly available within the DPD. Each picture in the DPD has indeed been rated on the perceived intensity of six basic emotions and pain. A mixed ANOVA 7 (affective states) by 2 (genders) indicated significant main effects of affective states and gender, as well as an interaction between both factors. T-tests indicated that fear and sadness were perceived as significantly higher in women's PFE, while pain was perceived as significantly higher in men's. These findings emphasize gender-specific disparities in PFE, their potential overlap with other affective states, and underscore the potential contribution of both encoding and decoding in observed gender differences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207