Gauging response time distributions to examine the effect of facial expression inversion
David L. Bimler, Galina V. Paramei
Frontiers in Psychology · 2023
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.957160 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
IntroductionWe used images of facial expressions (FEs) of emotion in a speeded Same/Different task to examine (i) distributional characteristics of response times (RTs) in relation to inter-stimulus similarity and (ii) the impact of inversion on FE processing.MethodsStimuli were seven emotion prototypes, posed by one male and one female, and eight intermediate morphs. Image pairs (N = 225) were presented for 500 ms, upright or inverted, in a block design, each 100 times.ResultsFor both upright and inverted FEs, RTs were a non-monotonic function: median values were longest for stimulus pairs of intermediate similarity, decreasing for both more-dissimilar and more-similar pairs. RTs of “Same” and “Different” judgments followed ex-Gaussian distributions. The non-monotonicity is interpreted within a dual-process decision model framework as reflecting the infrequency of identical pairs, shifting the balance between the Same and Different processes. The effect of stimulus inversion was gauged by comparing RT-based multidimensional scaling solutions for the two presentation modes. Solutions for upright and inverted FEs showed little difference, with both displaying some evidence of categorical perception. The same features appeared in hierarchical clustering solutions.DiscussionThis outcome replicates and reinforces the solutions derived from accuracy of “Different” responses reported in our earlier companion paper. We attribute this lack of inversion effect to the brief exposure time, allowing low-level visual processing to dominate Same/Different decisions while elevating early featural analysis, which is insensitive to face orientation but enables initial positive/negative valence categorization of FEs.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.