Dynamic facial expressions are processed holistically, but not more holistically than static facial expressions

Abstract

R. (2016). Dynamic facial expressions are processed holistically, but not more holistically than static facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 30 (6), 1208-1221. Dynamic facial expressions are processed holistically, but not more holistically than static facial expressions AbstractThere is evidence that facial expressions are perceived holistically and featurally. The composite task is a direct measure of holistic processing (although the absence of a composite effect implies the use of other types of processing). Most composite task studies have used static images, despite the fact that movement is an important aspect of facial expressions and there is some evidence that movement may facilitate recognition. We created static and dynamic composites, in which emotions were reliably identified from each half of the face. The magnitude of the composite effect was similar for static and dynamic expressions identified from the top half (anger, sadness and surprise) but was reduced in dynamic as compared to static expressions identified from the bottom half (fear, disgust and joy). Thus, any advantage in recognising dynamic over static expressions is not likely to stem from enhanced holistic processing, rather motion may emphasise or disambiguate diagnostic featural information. AbstractThere is evidence that facial expressions are perceived holistically and featurally. The

Parts‐based representations of perceived face movements in the superior temporal sulcus

“…We used images rather than videos so that stimuli could be presented for a short duration (200 ms rather than 2 s), in order to be consistent with the prior literature on the composite effect, to limit participants' opportunity to saccade, and to increase the difficulty of the behavioral task to avoid a ceiling effect. Prior research has found comparable composite effects for dynamic stimuli (videos of expression formation) and static images of the expression formed (Tobin, Favelle, & Palermo, ). In the “aligned” condition, the top and bottom portions of the face (containing the eye/eyebrow and mouth, respectively) were presented in vertical alignment.…”

“…The stimulus set consisted of four eye/eyebrow movements, four mouth movements, and sixteen combined (eye and mouth) movements a ceiling effect. Prior research has found comparable composite effects for dynamic stimuli (videos of expression formation) and static images of the expression formed (Tobin, Favelle, & Palermo, 2016). In the "aligned" condition, the top and bottom portions of the face (containing the eye/eyebrow and mouth, respectively) were presented in vertical alignment.…”

Difficulties in Recognising Dynamic but not Static Emotional Body Movements in Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Moreover, our results on emotional BM are consistent with previous evidence on static vs dynamic facial expressions. In TD population the motion information seems to facilitate the recognition of facial expressions (Tobin, Favelle, & Palermo, 2016), while previous behavioural and eye tracking studies found atypical responses to facial expressions elicited by dynamic compared to static stimuli in individuals with ASD (Tardif et al 2007;Uono et al 2009). Furthermore, reduced facial mimicry in high-functioning ASD was found in responses to dynamic but not to static facial expressions and this reduction was related to social dysfunction (Yoshimura et al 2015).…”

Acting Surprised: Comparing Perceptions of Different Dynamic Deliberate Expressions

“…Emotions were judged by decoders from dynamic video stimuli, as they more closely resemble real-life expressions (Arsalidou et al 2011), thereby offering better ecological validity (Krumhuber et al 2013). Videos are also beneficial to discriminating expression authenticity (Zloteanu et al 2018), allowing for more subtle elements of an expression to be incorporated into the decoding process (e.g., timing, duration, fluidity; Tobin et al 2016).…”