4.5 Article

The eyes are not the window to basic emotions

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
Volume 50, Issue 12, Pages 2830-2838

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.08.010

Keywords

Facial expression recognition; Facial features; Visual mechanisms; Classification image technique

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (CRSNG)
  2. Fonds Quebecois de Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Facial expressions are one of the most important ways to communicate our emotional state. In popular culture and in the scientific literature on face processing, the eye area is often conceived as a very important - if not the most important - cue for the recognition of facial expressions. In support of this, an underutilization of the eye area is often observed in clinical populations with a deficit in the recognition of facial expressions of emotions. Here, we used the Bubbles technique to verify which facial cue is the most important when it comes to discriminating between eight static and dynamic facial expressions (i.e., six basic emotions, pain and a neutral expression). We found that the mouth area is the most important cue for both static and dynamic facial expressions. We conducted an ideal observer analysis on the static expressions and determined that the mouth area is the most informative. However, we found an underutilization of the eye area by human participants in comparison to the ideal observer. We then demonstrated that the mouth area contains the most discriminative motions across expressions. We propose that the greater utilization of the mouth area by the human participants might come from remnants of the strategy the brain has developed with dynamic stimuli, and/or from a strategy whereby the most informative area is prioritized due to the limited capacity of the visuo-cognitive system. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available