Suppr超能文献

情绪识别偏差取决于刺激变形策略。

Emotion recognition bias depends on stimulus morphing strategy.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.

Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL, London, UK.

出版信息

Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Aug;84(6):2051-2059. doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02532-0. Epub 2022 Jul 5.

Abstract

Emotion recognition is vital for social interactions, and atypical (or biased) emotion recognition has been linked to mental health disorders including depression and anxiety. However, biases in emotion recognition vary across studies, and it is unclear whether this reflects genuine group differences in psychological processes underlying emotion recognition or differences in methodologies. One common method to measure biases in emotion recognition involves morphing a face between two emotional expressions in different ratios and asking participants to categorise the faces as belonging to one of the two emotion categories ('direct-morphing' method). However, this method creates morphed faces that are not ecologically valid. Alternatively, faces may be morphed through a neutral expression ('morphing-through-neutral' method), which is more ecologically valid since emotional expressions usually start from a neutral face. To compare these two approaches, we measured emotion recognition biases using two morphing techniques in 136 participants who also completed measures of anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9). Biases obtained using the two methods differed significantly: In the direct-morphing method, participants perceived the central 50% happy/50% angry face as slightly happy, whereas in the morphing-through-neutral method the neutral face was seen as angry. There were no associations between biases and depression or anxiety scores for either morphing method. This study is the first to directly compare emotion recognition biases obtained using two different morphing methods and is a first step towards reconciling discrepancies in the literature.

摘要

情绪识别对于社交互动至关重要,非典型(或有偏差)的情绪识别与包括抑郁和焦虑在内的心理健康障碍有关。然而,情绪识别中的偏差在不同的研究中有所不同,目前尚不清楚这是否反映了情绪识别背后的心理过程存在真正的群体差异,还是反映了方法学上的差异。一种常见的测量情绪识别偏差的方法是在两种不同比例的情绪表情之间对人脸进行变形,并要求参与者将人脸归类为两种情绪类别之一(“直接变形”方法)。然而,这种方法创建的变形人脸不具有生态有效性。或者,可以通过中性表情对人脸进行变形(“通过中性变形”方法),这种方法更具生态有效性,因为情绪表达通常从中性表情开始。为了比较这两种方法,我们在 136 名参与者中使用两种变形技术测量情绪识别偏差,这些参与者还完成了焦虑(GAD-7)和抑郁(PHQ-9)的测量。使用两种方法获得的偏差差异显著:在直接变形方法中,参与者认为中央 50%的快乐/50%的愤怒脸略为快乐,而在通过中性变形的方法中,中性脸被视为愤怒。对于两种变形方法,偏差与抑郁或焦虑评分之间均无关联。本研究首次直接比较了使用两种不同变形方法获得的情绪识别偏差,是解决文献差异的第一步。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9734/9338007/e3c1371249e8/13414_2022_2532_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验