↓ Skip to main content

Processing Facial Expressions of Emotion: Upright vs. Inverted Images

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Processing Facial Expressions of Emotion: Upright vs. Inverted Images
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00054
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Bimler, Slawomir J. Skwarek, Galina V. Paramei

Abstract

We studied discrimination of briefly presented upright vs. inverted emotional facial expressions (FEs), hypothesizing that inversion would impair emotion decoding by disrupting holistic FE processing. Stimuli were photographs of seven emotion prototypes, of a male and female poser (Ekman and Friesen, 1976), and eight intermediate morphs in each set. Subjects made speeded Same/Different judgments of emotional content for all upright (U) or inverted (I) pairs of FEs, presented for 500 ms, 100 times each pair. Signal Detection Theory revealed the sensitivity measure d' to be slightly but significantly higher for the upright FEs. In further analysis using multidimensional scaling (MDS), percentages of Same judgments were taken as an index of pairwise perceptual similarity, separately for U and I presentation mode. The outcome was a 4D "emotion expression space," with FEs represented as points and the dimensions identified as Happy-Sad, Surprise/Fear, Disgust, and Anger. The solutions for U and I FEs were compared by means of cophenetic and canonical correlation, Procrustes analysis, and weighted-Euclidean analysis of individual differences. Differences in discrimination produced by inverting FE stimuli were found to be small and manifested as minor changes in the MDS structure or weights of the dimensions. Solutions differed substantially more between the two posers, however. Notably, for stimuli containing elements of Happiness (whether U or I), the MDS structure showed signs of implicit categorization, indicating that mouth curvature - the dominant feature conveying Happiness - is visually salient and receives early processing. The findings suggest that for briefly presented FEs, Same/Different decisions are dominated by low-level visual analysis of abstract patterns of lightness and edge filters, but also reflect emerging featural analysis. These analyses, insensitive to face orientation, enable initial positive/negative Valence categorization of FEs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 62%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2013.
All research outputs
#7,801,184
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,091
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,233
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#423
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.