4.6 Article

Recognition and discrimination of prototypical dynamic expressions of pain and emotions

期刊

PAIN
卷 135, 期 1-2, 页码 55-64

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.05.008

关键词

facial expression; pain; emotion; FACS; recognition; valence; arousal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Facial expressions of pain and emotions provide powerful social signals, which impart information about a person's state. Unfortunately, research on pain and emotion expression has been conducted largely in parallel with few bridges allowing for direct comparison of the expressive displays and their impact on observers. Moreover, although facial expressions are highly dynamic, previous research has relied mainly on static photographs. Here we directly compare the recognition and discrimination of dynamic facial expressions of pain and basic emotions by naive observers. One-second film clips were recorded in eight actors displaying neutral facial expressions and expressions of pain and the basic emotions of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise. Results based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) confirmed the distinct (and prototypical) configuration of pain and basic emotion expressions reported in previous studies. Volunteers' evaluations of those dynamic expressions on intensity, arousal and valence demonstrate the high sensitivity and specificity of the observers' judgement. Additional rating data further suggest that, for comparable expression intensity, pain is perceived as more arousing and more unpleasant. This study strongly supports the claim that the facial expression of pain is distinct from the expression of basic emotions. This set of dynamic facial expressions provides unique material to explore the psychological and neurobiological processes underlying the perception of pain expression, its impact on the observer, and its role in the regulation of social behaviour. (c) 2007 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据