Limits...
Viewing distance matter to perceived intensity of facial expressions.

Gerhardsson A, Högman L, Fischer H - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: This is important to how we interpret the quality and the intensity of the expression.Seventy-one (42 females) participants rated the intensity and valence of facial expressions varying in distance and intensity.The present study raises considerations regarding constancy of the PI of happy and angry facial expressions at varied distances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm Sweden ; Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm Sweden.

ABSTRACT
In our daily perception of facial expressions, we depend on an ability to generalize across the varied distances at which they may appear. This is important to how we interpret the quality and the intensity of the expression. Previous research has not investigated whether this so called perceptual constancy also applies to the experienced intensity of facial expressions. Using a psychophysical measure (Borg CR100 scale) the present study aimed to further investigate perceptual constancy of happy and angry facial expressions at varied sizes, which is a proxy for varying viewing distances. Seventy-one (42 females) participants rated the intensity and valence of facial expressions varying in distance and intensity. The results demonstrated that the perceived intensity (PI) of the emotional facial expression was dependent on the distance of the face and the person perceiving it. An interaction effect was noted, indicating that close-up faces are perceived as more intense than faces at a distance and that this effect is stronger the more intense the facial expression truly is. The present study raises considerations regarding constancy of the PI of happy and angry facial expressions at varied distances.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Marginal mean estimate (black line) of PI on effects of Distance (A) and Distance×Manipulated Intensity interaction on separate plots (B–E) indicating higher intensities to have a more positive linear trend than lower intensities. Gray lines represent each subject’s mean. Dotted lines represent ±95% confidence interval.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4488603&req=5

Figure 4: Marginal mean estimate (black line) of PI on effects of Distance (A) and Distance×Manipulated Intensity interaction on separate plots (B–E) indicating higher intensities to have a more positive linear trend than lower intensities. Gray lines represent each subject’s mean. Dotted lines represent ±95% confidence interval.

Mentions: In the second analysis PI was used as dependent variable. First of all, a significant main effect of Manipulated Intensity was evident F(1.25,57.59) = 151.87, p < 0.0001, = 0.77, with a significant linear contrast F(1,46) = 171.34, p < 0.0001, = 0.79, and cubic contrast F(1,46) = 9.10, p = 0.004, = 0.17. Distance had a significant main effect on the PI F(1.95,89.82) = 10.30, p < 0.0001, = 0 0.18, with a signifi-cant linear contrast F(1, 46) = 9.08, p < 0.004, = 0.17, and a significant quadratic contrast F(1,46) = 28.71, p < 0.0001, = 0.38 (Figure 4A). Furthermore, there was a significant Distance × Manipulated Intensity interaction F(7.89,362.77) = 2.70, p = 0.007, = 0.06. A significant linear contrast further qualified the interaction F(1,46) = 18.29, p < 0.0001, = 0.29 (Figure 4B-E). No significant main effects were found for face gender F(1,46) = 0.04, p = 0.85, or face expression F(1,46) = 0.34, p = 0.57.


Viewing distance matter to perceived intensity of facial expressions.

Gerhardsson A, Högman L, Fischer H - Front Psychol (2015)

Marginal mean estimate (black line) of PI on effects of Distance (A) and Distance×Manipulated Intensity interaction on separate plots (B–E) indicating higher intensities to have a more positive linear trend than lower intensities. Gray lines represent each subject’s mean. Dotted lines represent ±95% confidence interval.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4488603&req=5

Figure 4: Marginal mean estimate (black line) of PI on effects of Distance (A) and Distance×Manipulated Intensity interaction on separate plots (B–E) indicating higher intensities to have a more positive linear trend than lower intensities. Gray lines represent each subject’s mean. Dotted lines represent ±95% confidence interval.
Mentions: In the second analysis PI was used as dependent variable. First of all, a significant main effect of Manipulated Intensity was evident F(1.25,57.59) = 151.87, p < 0.0001, = 0.77, with a significant linear contrast F(1,46) = 171.34, p < 0.0001, = 0.79, and cubic contrast F(1,46) = 9.10, p = 0.004, = 0.17. Distance had a significant main effect on the PI F(1.95,89.82) = 10.30, p < 0.0001, = 0 0.18, with a signifi-cant linear contrast F(1, 46) = 9.08, p < 0.004, = 0.17, and a significant quadratic contrast F(1,46) = 28.71, p < 0.0001, = 0.38 (Figure 4A). Furthermore, there was a significant Distance × Manipulated Intensity interaction F(7.89,362.77) = 2.70, p = 0.007, = 0.06. A significant linear contrast further qualified the interaction F(1,46) = 18.29, p < 0.0001, = 0.29 (Figure 4B-E). No significant main effects were found for face gender F(1,46) = 0.04, p = 0.85, or face expression F(1,46) = 0.34, p = 0.57.

Bottom Line: This is important to how we interpret the quality and the intensity of the expression.Seventy-one (42 females) participants rated the intensity and valence of facial expressions varying in distance and intensity.The present study raises considerations regarding constancy of the PI of happy and angry facial expressions at varied distances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm Sweden ; Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm Sweden.

ABSTRACT
In our daily perception of facial expressions, we depend on an ability to generalize across the varied distances at which they may appear. This is important to how we interpret the quality and the intensity of the expression. Previous research has not investigated whether this so called perceptual constancy also applies to the experienced intensity of facial expressions. Using a psychophysical measure (Borg CR100 scale) the present study aimed to further investigate perceptual constancy of happy and angry facial expressions at varied sizes, which is a proxy for varying viewing distances. Seventy-one (42 females) participants rated the intensity and valence of facial expressions varying in distance and intensity. The results demonstrated that the perceived intensity (PI) of the emotional facial expression was dependent on the distance of the face and the person perceiving it. An interaction effect was noted, indicating that close-up faces are perceived as more intense than faces at a distance and that this effect is stronger the more intense the facial expression truly is. The present study raises considerations regarding constancy of the PI of happy and angry facial expressions at varied distances.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus