Literature DB >> 24460373

Confusion of fear and surprise: a test of the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis with eye movement monitoring.

Annie Roy-Charland1, Melanie Perron, Olivia Beaudry, Kaylee Eady.   

Abstract

Of the basic emotional facial expressions, fear is typically less accurately recognised as a result of being confused with surprise. According to the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis, the difficulty in recognising fear could be attributed to the similar visual configuration with surprise. In effect, they share more muscle movements than they possess distinctive ones. The main goal of the current study was to test the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis in the recognition of fear and surprise using eye movement recording and by manipulating the distinctiveness between expressions. Results revealed that when the brow lowerer is the only distinctive feature between expressions, accuracy is lower, participants spend more time looking at stimuli and they make more comparisons between expressions than when stimuli include the lip stretcher. These results not only support the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis but extend its definition by suggesting that it is not solely the number of distinctive features that is important but also their qualitative value.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Confusion fear/surprise; Eye movements; Facial expressions

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24460373     DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2013.878687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Emot        ISSN: 0269-9931


  10 in total

1.  Foveal processing of emotion-informative facial features.

Authors:  Nazire Duran; Anthony P Atkinson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Iranian emotional face database: Acquisition and validation of a stimulus set of basic facial expressions.

Authors:  Faeze Heydari; Saber Sheybani; Ali Yoonessi
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-03-16

3.  Padova Emotional Dataset of Facial Expressions (PEDFE): A unique dataset of genuine and posed emotional facial expressions.

Authors:  A Miolla; M Cardaioli; C Scarpazza
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-08-24

4.  Space-by-time manifold representation of dynamic facial expressions for emotion categorization.

Authors:  Ioannis Delis; Chaona Chen; Rachael E Jack; Oliver G B Garrod; Stefano Panzeri; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Biased Recognition of Surprised Facial Expressions Following Awake Craniotomy of a Right Temporal Lobe Tumor.

Authors:  Akira Midorikawa; Shoko Saito; Chihiro Itoi; Ryuta Ochi; Kentaro Hiromitsu; Ryoji Yamada; Nobusada Shinoura
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-08-20

6.  How does the presence of a surgical face mask impair the perceived intensity of facial emotions?

Authors:  Maria Tsantani; Vita Podgajecka; Katie L H Gray; Richard Cook
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Face masks impair facial emotion recognition and induce specific emotion confusions.

Authors:  Maximilian A Primbs; Iris A M Verpaalen; Mike Rinck; Gijsbert Bijlstra
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-09-05

8.  The recognition of facial expressions of emotion in deaf and hearing individuals.

Authors:  Helen Rodger; Junpeng Lao; Chloé Stoll; Anne-Raphaëlle Richoz; Olivier Pascalis; Matthew Dye; Roberto Caldara
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-05-15

9.  Assessing the convergent validity between the automated emotion recognition software Noldus FaceReader 7 and Facial Action Coding System Scoring.

Authors:  Tanja Skiendziel; Andreas G Rösch; Oliver C Schultheiss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Impact of face masks and sunglasses on emotion recognition in South Koreans.

Authors:  Garam Kim; So Hyun Seong; Seok-Sung Hong; Eunsoo Choi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.