4.4 Article

Enjoying vs. smiling: Facial muscular activation in response to emotional language

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 126-135

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.04.069

关键词

EMG; Emotion language; Linguistic abstraction; Embodied cognition; Zygomaticus; Corrugator

资金

  1. 'Excellence Fund' of Albanian Ministry of Education and Science
  2. Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna [219/2012]
  3. MIUR, FIRB Future in Research [2012 RBFR128CR6_004]
  4. Cogito Foundation [R-117/13, 14-139-R]
  5. Ministero Istruzione, Universita e Ricerca (Futuro in Ricerca [RBFR12F0BD]
  6. Ministero della Salute (Bando Ricerca Finalizzata Giovani Ricercatori) [GR-2010-2319335]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study examined whether emotionally congruent facial muscular activation - a somatic index of emotional language embodiment can be elicited by reading subject-verb sentences composed of action verbs, that refer directly to facial expressions (e.g., Mario smiles), but also by reading more abstract state verbs, which provide more direct access to the emotions felt by the agent (e.g., Mario enjoys). To address this issue, we measured facial electromyography (EMG) while participants evaluated state and action verb sentences. We found emotional sentences including both verb categories to have valence-congruent effects on emotional ratings and corresponding facial muscle activations. As expected, state verb-sentences were judged with higher valence ratings than action verb-sentences. Moreover, despite emotional congruent facial activations were similar for the two linguistic categories, in a late temporal window we found a tendency for greater EMG modulation when reading action relative to state verb sentences. These results support embodied theories of language comprehension and suggest that understanding emotional action and state verb sentences relies on partially dissociable motor and emotional processes. (C) 2016 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

4.4
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