| Literature DB >> 32328006 |
Lan Zhong1, Yamin Wang1, Hong Kan1, Jinhong Ding1.
Abstract
Mood-congruent effects have been demonstrated many times, but few studies have managed to replicate the effect with natural moods. Additionally, the ecological validity of mood induction and real-time observation deficiency remain unresolved. Using a newly developed, virtual-reality-based eye-tracking technique, the present study conducted real-time observations of mood effects on emotional face recognition with simulated "real-life" pleasant and grisly scenes. In experiment 1, participants performed an emotional face recognition task in both positive and negative virtual reality scenes. The recognition tests and gaze tracking results failed to support mood-congruent effects but did show a mood effect independent of a strong emotional face effect. In experiment 2, participants performed a neutral face recognition task in pleasant and grisly scenes that were matched for arousal levels, and the mood effect disappeared. The results also revealed a robust negativity bias in emotional face recognition, which was found to accompany a mood repair effect.Entities:
Keywords: emotional memory; face learning; face recognition; gaze tracking; mood congruity; mood induction; mood-congruent effect; virtual reality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32328006 PMCID: PMC7160363 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00479
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Virtual reality environments (VREs) used in experiments 1 and 2. NS, neutral scene; GS, grisly scene; PS, pleasant scene.
Assessments of faces and scenes for experiment 1, (SD).
| Parameter | Face | |||
| Fearful | Happy | Neutral | ||
| Valence | ||||
| Female | 3.19 (0.42) | 6.78 (0.56) | 4.74 (0.33) | |
| Male | 3.18 (0.44) | 7.01 (0.58) | 4.53 (0.39) | |
| Female | 6.34 (0.39) | 6.23 (0.50) | 2.86 (0.32) | |
| Male | 6.36 (0.58) | 6.13 (0.54) | 2.97 (0.29) | |
| Valence | 2.90 (1.34) | 4.97 (0.97) | 3.93 (0.86) | |
| Arousal | 4.46 (1.10) | 3.74 (1.14) | 3.11 (1.15) | |
FIGURE 2Block design for experiment 1. Top and bottom shows the block order for each half of the participants.
Emotional face recognition results for experiment 1, (SD).
| Condition | Raw measure | Discrimination | Bias | |||
| Hit rate | FA rate | |||||
| GSFF | 0.78 (0.21) | 0.18 (0.17) | 0.84 (0.12) | 0.53 (0.23) | 0.06 (0.58) | 0.47 (0.26) |
| GSHF | 0.76 (0.19) | 0.26 (0.23) | 0.80 (0.13) | 0.45 (0.25) | 0.001 (0.56) | 0.49 (0.23) |
| GSNF | 0.76 (0.19) | 0.19 (0.19) | 0.83 (0.13) | 0.51 (0.24) | 0.12 (0.56) | 0.45 (0.24) |
| PSFF | 0.80 (0.15) | 0.15 (0.17) | 0.86 (0.09) | 0.58 (0.19) | 0.13 (0.56) | 0.44 (0.25) |
| PSHF | 0.77 (0.16) | 0.21 (0.21) | 0.82 (0.12) | 0.50 (0.23) | 0.06 (0.56) | 0.46 (0.24) |
| PSNF | 0.73 (0.20) | 0.18 (0.17) | 0.82 (0.12) | 0.49 (0.24) | 0.18 (0.51) | 0.42 (0.22) |
| NSFF | 0.82 (0.17) | 0.10 (0.15) | 0.89 (0.07) | 0.64 (0.19) | 0.23 (0.52) | 0.40 (0.23) |
| NSHF | 0.79 (0.18) | 0.21 (0.23) | 0.83 (0.11) | 0.51 (0.24) | 0.03 (0.56) | 0.48 (0.24) |
| NSNF | 0.78 (0.19) | 0.16 (0.15) | 0.85 (0.10) | 0.55 (0.22) | 0.12 (0.50) | 0.45 (0.21) |
FIGURE 3Gaze movements results for experiment 1. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (see Supplementary Material for datasets).
FIGURE 4Heat maps for experiment 1. GS, grisly scene; HS, pleasant scene; NS, neutral scene; FF, fearful face; HF, happy face; NF, neutral face.
Assessments of faces and scene in experiment 2 (SD) and emotional face recognition results for experiment 2 (SD).
| Parameter | Face | Scene | ||||||
| Female | Male | Grisly | Pleasant | |||||
| Valence | 5.54 (1.06) | 4.84 (1.01) | 3.70 (1.35) | 4.93 (1.23) | ||||
| Arousal | 4.17 (0.84) | 3.94 (0.62) | 4.22 (1.35) | 4.24 (1.44) | ||||
| GSNF | 0.65 (0.18) | 0.12 (0.10) | 0.84 (0.09) | 0.51 (0.21) | 0.50 (0.37) | 0.29 (0.17) | ||
| PSNF | 0.67 (0.18) | 0.11 (0.10) | 0.85 (0.09) | 0.53 (0.20) | 0.52 (0.36) | 0.27 (0.17) | ||