Literature DB >> 21097856

Still another confounded face in the crowd.

Dean G Purcell1, Alan L Stewart.   

Abstract

Experiments using schematic faces developed by Öhman (Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001) seem to document an anger-superiority effect, although we have come to question these experiments. Our work shows that the low-level features of these schematic faces interact with the face's surround to produce effects that have been attributed to facial affect. Using relatively neutral faces that preserved the feature and surround spatial relationships of angry and happy schematic faces, we produced reaction times (RTs) that were indistinguishable from those found with angry and happy faces. We also found that the target face's position within the crowd determined the magnitude of the advantage for angry faces as well as for relatively affect-neutral faces. Removing the facial surround reduces the advantage for angry faces, largely by improving performance on happy faces. There was an apparent small advantage for angry features without a surround. Öhman faces avoid the problems associated with modified grayscale faces only to introduce an equally troubling confound.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21097856     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  11 in total

1.  Value associations of emotional faces can modify the anger superiority effect: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.

Authors:  Shuxia Yao; Cody Ding; Senqing Qi; Dong Yang
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-14       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Task-irrelevant fear enhances amygdala-FFG inhibition and decreases subsequent face processing.

Authors:  Barbara Schulte Holthausen; Ute Habel; Thilo Kellermann; Patrick D Schelenz; Frank Schneider; J Christopher Edgar; Bruce I Turetsky; Christina Regenbogen
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-05       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Introducing the Prototypical Stimulus Characteristics Toolbox: Protosc.

Authors:  S M Stuit; C L E Paffen; S Van der Stigchel
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-12-16

4.  Through a glass darkly: facial wrinkles affect our processing of emotion in the elderly.

Authors:  Maxi Freudenberg; Reginald B Adams; Robert E Kleck; Ursula Hess
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-01

5.  Subliminal cues bias perception of facial affect in patients with social phobia: evidence for enhanced unconscious threat processing.

Authors:  Aiste Jusyte; Michael Schönenberg
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 6.  Negative and Positive Bias for Emotional Faces: Evidence from the Attention and Working Memory Paradigms.

Authors:  Qianru Xu; Chaoxiong Ye; Simeng Gu; Zhonghua Hu; Yi Lei; Xueyan Li; Lihui Huang; Qiang Liu
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.599

7.  No prior entry for threat-related faces: evidence from temporal order judgments.

Authors:  Antonio Schettino; Tom Loeys; Gilles Pourtois
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Eye tracking the face in the crowd task: why are angry faces found more quickly?

Authors:  Jonathon R Shasteen; Noah J Sasson; Amy E Pinkham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The Influence of Task-Irrelevant Flankers Depends on the Composition of Emotion Categories.

Authors:  Barbara Schulte Holthausen; Christina Regenbogen; Bruce I Turetsky; Frank Schneider; Ute Habel
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-05-25

10.  Borderline Personality and the Detection of Angry Faces.

Authors:  Johanna Hepp; Benjamin E Hilbig; Pascal J Kieslich; Julia Herzog; Stefanie Lis; Christian Schmahl; Inga Niedtfeld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.