4.8 Article

Dynamic Facial Expressions of Emotion Transmit an Evolving Hierarchy of Signals over Time

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 187-192

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.064

关键词

-

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K001973/1, ES/K00607X/1]
  2. British Academy [SG113332]
  3. University of Glasgow
  4. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K00607X/1, ES/K001973/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. ESRC [ES/K001973/1, ES/K00607X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Designed by biological [1, 2] and social [3] evolutionary pressures, facial expressions of emotion comprise specific facial movements [4-8] to support a near-optimal system of signaling and decoding [9, 10]. Although highly dynamical [11, 12], little is known about the form and function of facial expression temporal dynamics. Do facial expressions transmit diagnostic signals simultaneously to optimize categorization of the six classic emotions, or sequentially to support a more complex communication system of successive categorizations over time? Our data support the latter. Using a combination of perceptual expectation modeling [13-15], information theory [16, 17], and Bayesian classifiers, we show that dynamic facial expressions of emotion transmit an evolving hierarchy of biologically basic to socially specific'' information over time. Early in the signaling dynamics, facial expressions systematically transmit few, biologically rooted face signals [1] supporting the categorization of fewer elementary categories (e. g., approach/avoidance). Later transmissions comprise more complex signals that support categorization of a larger number of socially specific categories (i.e., the six classic emotions). Here, we show that dynamic facial expressions of emotion provide a sophisticated signaling system, questioning the widely accepted notion that emotion communication is comprised of six basic (i.e., psychologically irreducible) categories [18], and instead suggesting four.

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

4.8
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