| Literature DB >> 18985152 |
Miriam Dyck1, Maren Winbeck, Susanne Leiberg, Yuhan Chen, Ruben C Gur, Rurben C Gur, Klaus Mathiak.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer-generated virtual faces become increasingly realistic including the simulation of emotional expressions. These faces can be used as well-controlled, realistic and dynamic stimuli in emotion research. However, the validity of virtual facial expressions in comparison to natural emotion displays still needs to be shown for the different emotions and different age groups. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18985152 PMCID: PMC2574410 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Accuracy rates in % for best recognized faces.
| Natural face | Virtual face |
| |
| Happiness | 100 | 100 | >.7 |
| Anger | 97.4 | 87.2 | >.7 |
| Fear | 84.60 | 84.6 | >.7 |
| Sadness | 78.10 | 84.4 | >.7 |
| Disgust | 92.3 | 38.5 |
|
| Neutral | 96.9 | 100 | >.7 |
best recognized face.
Figure 1A: Recognition accuracy (chance performance was 16.67%) and B: response times with standard error of mean for natural and virtual facial expressions across all subjects.
Accuracy ratings and confusions (% correct) for virtual and natural faces.
| Ratings | ||||||
| Expression | Happiness | Sadness | Anger | Fear | Disgust | Neutral |
|
| ||||||
| Happiness |
| 0 | 0.33 | 0.82 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| Sadness | 0.33 |
| 8.14 | 10.29 | 4.49 | 20.76 |
| Anger | 2.99 | 7.65 |
| 4.83 | 9.82 | 9.65 |
| Fear | 5.09 | 7.95 | 2.37 |
| 3.21 | 7.45 |
| Disgust | 5.61 | 11.73 | 31.46 | 7.65 |
| 20.58 |
| Neutral | 4.79 | 11.74 | 3.97 | 3.64 | 0.99 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Happiness |
| 0.16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.164 |
| Sadness | 1.00 |
| 18.8 | 8.32 | 21.63 | 18.3 |
| Anger | 1.18 | 7.41 |
| 9.76 | 5.39 | 15.82 |
| Fear | 2.69 | 3.7 | 8.74 |
| 12.44 | 9.92 |
| Disgust | 1.34 | 12.25 | 14.43 | 4.87 |
| 4.87 |
| Neutral | 2.98 | 4.97 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 0.17 |
|
Boldface indicates recognition rates of intended emotion.
Figure 2Recognition accuracy with standard error of mean for natural and virtual facial expressions in subjects under and above the age of 40 (chance performance was 16.67%).
Demographic information on the experimental groups.
| Overall (n = 32) | <40 years (n = 16) | >40 years (n = 16) |
| ||||
| Mean | ±SD | Mean | ±SD | Mean | ±SD | ||
| Age (years) | 38.3 | 12.4 | 27.2 | 5.1 | 49.4 | 5.2 | - |
| Education (years) | 13.8 | 3.8 | 14.5 | 2.6 | 13.0 | 4.6 | 0.25 |
| IQ (MWT-B) | 118.1 | 11.7 | 115.4 | 11.1 | 120.8 | 12.0 | 0.20 |
| PANAS positive | 31.1 | 5.8 | 29.1 | 5.2 | 33.1 | 5.9 |
|
| PANAS negative | 11.8 | 4.2 | 12.6 | 5.8 | 11.0 | 1.0 | 0.28 |
| Video game experience (%) | 28.1 | - | 43.8 | - | 12.5 | - |
|
MWT-B, Mehrfachwahl Wortschatz Intelligenztest (vocabulary intelligence test); SD, standard deviation; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Scale.
FACS of virtual emotions: percentage of faces with respective AU present and mean intensity.
| AU | Name | Happiness | Fear | Anger | Sadness | Disgust | |||||
| % | Mean | % | Mean | % | Mean | % | Mean | % | Mean | ||
| 1 | Inner Brow Raiser | 100 | 0.5 | 100 | 1.0 | 0 | - | 100 | 0.7 | 100 | 0.6 |
| 2 | Outer Brow Raiser | 100 | 0.5 | 100 | 0.6 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 89.5 | 0.9 |
| 4 | Brow Lowerer | 100 | - | 0 | - | 100 | 1.0 | 94.7 | 0.2 | 0 | - |
| 5 | Upper Lid Raiser | 100 | 0.5 | 100 | 1.0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 6 | Cheek Raiser | 100 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 7 | Lid Tightener | 100 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 94.7 | 0.9 | 36.8 | 0.1 | 0 | - |
| 9 | Nose Wrinkler | 100 | 0.3 | 0 | - | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 100 | 1.0 |
| 10 | Upper Lid Raiser | 0 | - | 0 | - | 47.4 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 68.4 | 0.7 |
| 12 | Lip Corner Puller | 100 | 0.5 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 15 | Lip Corner Depressor | 0 | - | 100 | 0.6 | 94.7 | 0.9 | 89.5 | 0.9 | 100 | 0.6 |
| 16 | Lower Lip Depressor | 0 | - | 0 | - | 84.2 | 0.8 | 0 | - | 52.6 | 0.5 |
| 17 | Chin Raiser | 0 | - | 0 | - | 36.8 | 0.2 | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 20 | Lip Stretcher | 0 | - | 89.5 | 0.3 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 23 | Lip Tightener | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 89.5 | 0.9 |
| 24 | Lip Pressor | 0 | - | 0 | - | 84.2 | 0.8 | 0 | - | 0 | |
| 25 | Lips Part | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 21.1 | 0.1 | 52.6 | 0.5 |
| 26 | Jaw Drop | 0 | - | 100 | 1.0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 38 | Nostril Dilator | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 36.8 | 0.4 | 0 | - |
FACS, Facial Action Coding System; AU, action unit.
Figure 3Implementation of action units 1, 2 and 4 in a natural and virtual face.
Mean subjective intensity ratings for virtual and natural faces (on a scale from 1-not intense to 6-very intense).
| Virtual faces | Natural faces | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Happiness | 4.41±0.46 | 3.41 | 5.30 | 4.53±0.86 | 2.67 | 5.69 |
| Fear | 3.91±0.60 | 2.43 | 4.79 | 3.86±1.04 | 2.00 | 5.08 |
| Anger | 3.73±0.79 | 2.38 | 5.85 | 3.58±0.94 | 2.11 | 5.85 |
| Sadness | 3.09±0.57 | 2.13 | 4.24 | 3.35±0.88 | 2.17 | 4.50 |
| Disgust | 3.46±0.79 | 1.75 | 5.16 | 3.99±0.84 | 2.17 | 5.57 |
SD, standard deviation; Min, Minimun; Max, Maximum.
Figure 4Examples of virtual emotion: fear expression in one male and one female character.