4.2 Article

Three-year-olds' rapid facial electromyographic responses to emotional facial expressions and body postures

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 144, Issue -, Pages 1-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.001

Keywords

Rapid facial responses; Emotion; EMG; Faces; Body postures; Children

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant [ODMIR 241176]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rapid facial reactions (RFRs) to observed emotional expressions are proposed to be involved in a wide array of socioemotional skills, from empathy to social communication. Two of the most persuasive theoretical accounts propose RFRs to rely either on motor resonance mechanisms or on more complex mechanisms involving affective processes. Previous studies demonstrated that presentation of facial and bodily expressions can generate rapid changes in adult and school-age children's muscle activity. However, to date there is little to no evidence to suggest the existence of emotional RFRs from infancy to preschool age. To investigate whether RFRs are driven by motor mimicry or could also be a result of emotional appraisal processes, we recorded facial electromyographic (EMG) activation from the zygomaticus major and frontalis medialis muscles to presentation of static facial and bodily expressions of emotions (i.e., happiness, anger, fear, and neutral) in 3-year-old children. Results showed no specific EMG activation in response to bodily emotion expressions. However, observing others' happy faces led to increased activation of the zygomaticus major and decreased activation of the frontalis medialis, whereas observing others' angry faces elicited the opposite pattern of activation. This study suggests that RFRs are the result of complex mechanisms in which both affective processes and motor resonance may play an important role. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available