September 2011
Volume 11, Issue 11
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2011
Uncovering the principles that allow a distinction of conversational facial expressions
Author Affiliations
  • Kathrin Kaulard
    Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tubingen, Germany
  • Ana Lucia Fernandez Cruz
    Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tubingen, Germany
  • Heinrich H. Bulthoff
    Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tubingen, Germany
    Department of Brain & Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
  • Johannes Schultz
    Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tubingen, Germany
Journal of Vision September 2011, Vol.11, 605. doi:10.1167/11.11.605
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kathrin Kaulard, Ana Lucia Fernandez Cruz, Heinrich H. Bulthoff, Johannes Schultz; Uncovering the principles that allow a distinction of conversational facial expressions. Journal of Vision 2011;11(11):605. doi: 10.1167/11.11.605.

      Download citation file:


      © 2016 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Facial expressions convey both emotional and conversational signals. Research focuses mostly on EMOTIONAL expressions and consistenly finds that these can be reliably distinguished along at least two dimensions: valence and arousal. CONVERSATIONAL expressions, i.e. those conveying mainly communicative meaning, are thought to be less emotional laden. Interestingly, we found evidence pointing towards the same first two underlying dimensions for CONVERSATIONAL expressions when presented dynamically. The question now arises: “Is the emergence of the valence and arousal dimensions for conversational facial expressions based on the emotional content of these expressions?” To answer this, we used questions addressing the emotional (Fontaine et al., 2007) and the conversational content separately. If the distinction of conversational expressions is based on the small amount of emotional information they might contain, we expect emotional content questions to allow a separation of those expressions. Ten native German participants answered a set of 27 questions for 6 emotional and 6 conversational expressions, both presented statically and dynamically, using a rating scale. A dissimilarity matrix was computed for the expressions. To uncover the meaning of the first two underlying dimensions allowing expression differentiation, multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used. Our results show that static and dynamic emotional expressions can only be distinguished by means of emotional content questions. For these emotional expressions, the valence and arousal dimensions emerged in the MDS. In contrast, conversational expressions can be distinguished using conversational content questions but not using emotional content questions. Unlike emotional expressions, dynamic information improved distinction of conversational expressions substantially. We found evidence for valence and arousal to be the underlying dimensions for conversational expressions. Our results suggest that the distinction of conversational expressions along the first two dimensions is based on conversational rather than emotional content. Moreover, different types of facial expressions benefit to different degrees from dynamic information.

EU Grant POETICON (215843). 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×