| Literature DB >> 35580128 |
Catia Correia-Caeiro1, Anne Burrows2,3, Duncan Andrew Wilson1,4, Abdelhady Abdelrahman5, Takako Miyabe-Nishiwaki1.
Abstract
Facial expressions are subtle cues, central for communication and conveying emotions in mammals. Traditionally, facial expressions have been classified as a whole (e.g. happy, angry, bared-teeth), due to automatic face processing in the human brain, i.e., humans categorise emotions globally, but are not aware of subtle or isolated cues such as an eyebrow raise. Moreover, the same facial configuration (e.g. lip corners pulled backwards exposing teeth) can convey widely different information depending on the species (e.g. humans: happiness; chimpanzees: fear). The Facial Action Coding System (FACS) is considered the gold standard for investigating human facial behaviour and avoids subjective interpretations of meaning by objectively measuring independent movements linked to facial muscles, called Action Units (AUs). Following a similar methodology, we developed the CalliFACS for the common marmoset. First, we determined the facial muscular plan of the common marmoset by examining dissections from the literature. Second, we recorded common marmosets in a variety of contexts (e.g. grooming, feeding, play, human interaction, veterinary procedures), and selected clips from online databases (e.g. YouTube) to identify their facial movements. Individual facial movements were classified according to appearance changes produced by the corresponding underlying musculature. A diverse repertoire of 33 facial movements was identified in the common marmoset (15 Action Units, 15 Action Descriptors and 3 Ear Action Descriptors). Although we observed a reduced range of facial movement when compared to the HumanFACS, the common marmoset's range of facial movements was larger than predicted according to their socio-ecology and facial morphology, which indicates their importance for social interactions. CalliFACS is a scientific tool to measure facial movements, and thus, allows us to better understand the common marmoset's expressions and communication. As common marmosets have become increasingly popular laboratory animal models, from neuroscience to cognition, CalliFACS can be used as an important tool to evaluate their welfare, particularly in captivity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35580128 PMCID: PMC9113598 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266442
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 10Examples of eyelid position at the apex of AU43/45 or AU47.
a) eyelids do not cover eyeball, and thus AU43/45 and AU47 are not present. b), c) and d): eyelids cover eyeball completely at the apex of the eyelids movement, and thus AU43/45 is coded. e) and f): eyelids cover eyeball only partially at the apex, and thus AU47 is coded. Other AUs are present (e.g. AU41).
Fig 16AU118—Lip Pucker.
Left: AU25 and AU27 are present; Right: AU118 is added to AU25+AU27.
Fig 18AU118—Lip Pucker.
Left: Neutral; Right: AU118 is present during AD19—Tongue Show.
Comparison between FACS Action Units (AU) for humans [3] and common marmosets [51, 52, 57] according to underlying musculature.
✓- present, x—absent.
| AU code | AU name | Underlying muscle | Human | Common marmoset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Frontalis (medial) | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Frontalis (lateral) | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Frontalis | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| Procerus, Depressor supercilii, Corrugator supercilii | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Depressor supercilii |
| ✓ |
|
|
| Orbicularis oculi | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Orbicularis oculi | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| Orbicularis oculi | ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ | |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ | |
|
|
|
| ✓ | |
|
|
| Orbicularis oris | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Levator labii superioris | ✓ |
|
|
| Superior auriculolabialis |
| ✓ | |
|
|
| Levator labii superioris |
| ✓ |
|
|
| Zygomatic minor | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Zygomatic major | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| Caninus (or Levator anguli oris) | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Buccinator | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Depressor anguli oris | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Depressor labii inferioris | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| Mentalis1 | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Incisivii labii (superioris and inferioris) | ✓ |
|
|
| Orbicularis oris |
| ✓ | |
|
|
| Risorius | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Platysma myoides | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Orbicularis oris | ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
| |
|
|
| ✓ |
| |
|
|
| Orbicularis oris | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ | |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ | |
|
|
| Orbicularis oris | ✓ |
|
|
|
| Nasalis | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| Nasalis | ✓ |
|
1Muscles described in the common marmoset inverted facial mask dissection by Burrows [51].
2Described by Huber [52].
3Described by Lightoller [57].
Comparison between FACS movements for ears and related movements of the tufts and scalp for humans [3] and common marmosets [51, 52, 57], according to underlying musculature, including Ear Action Descriptors (EAD) and Action Descriptors (AD).
✓- present, x—absent.
| EAD/AD code | EAD/AD name | Underlying muscle | Human | Common marmoset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Anterior auricularis |
| ✓ |
|
|
| Superior auricularis |
|
|
|
|
| Posterior auricularis |
| ✓ |
|
|
| Depressor helicis |
| ✓ |
|
|
| Occipitalis |
| ✓ |
|
|
| unknown |
| ✓ |
|
|
| unknown |
| ✓ |
1Muscles described in the common marmoset inverted facial mask dissection by Burrows [51].
2Described by Huber [52].
3Described by Lightoller [57].
4Described by Lightoller [57] as a weak muscle originating from the galea and inserting into the auricular cartilage.
Comparison between other FACS Action Descriptors (AD) for humans [3] and common marmosets.
✓- present, x—absent.
| AD code | AD name | Human | Common marmoset |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
| ✓ | ✓ |
|
|
|
| ✓ |
Mean Wexler’s index [67] (1) and independent coding agreement for each AU, AD and EAD in the three coding rounds.
NA denotes instances where all coders agreed that a particular Action was not present in any of the clips.
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wexler’s index | 0.52 | 0.69 | 0.82 |
| AU1+2 | 0.45 | 0.57 | 0.82 |
| AU41 | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.71 |
| AU6 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.79 |
| AU43 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.43 |
| AU45 | 0.63 | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| AU47 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| AU110 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.75 |
| AU109+110 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.67 |
| AU12 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.92 |
| AU16 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.89 |
| AU118 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.60 |
| AU25 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| AU26 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.90 |
| AU27 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| AU38 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| AD181 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| AD19 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| AD190 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| AD191 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD119 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD29 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| AD30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| AD40 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD80 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD81 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD160 | NA | NA | NA |
| AD101 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.90 |
| AD300 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| AD301 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 1.00 |
| EAD1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| EAD3 | 0.43 | 0.86 | 0.75 |
| EAD105 | NA | NA | NA |
1Low agreement due to rarely coded AUs/ADs/EADs (<3 occurrences), not due to low agreement between coders.
2NAs were only scored for ADs and one EAD105.