Comparing static and dynamic emotion recognition tests: Performance of healthy participants.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
30
06
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
entrez:
28
10
2020
pubmed:
29
10
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Facial expressions have a communicatory function and the ability to read them is a prerequisite for understanding feelings and thoughts of other individuals. Impairments in recognition of facial emotional expressions are frequently found in patients with neurological conditions (e.g. stroke, traumatic brain injury, frontotemporal dementia). Hence, a standard neuropsychological assessment should include measurement of emotion recognition. However, there is debate regarding which tests are most suitable. The current study evaluates and compares three different emotion recognition tests. 84 healthy participants were included and assessed with three tests, in varying order: a. Ekman 60 Faces Test (FEEST) b. Emotion Recognition Task (ERT) c. Emotion Evaluation Test (EET). The tests differ in type of stimuli from static photographs (FEEST) to more dynamic stimuli in the form of morphed photographs (ERT) to videos (EET). Comparing performances on the three tests, the lowest total scores (67.3% correct answers) were found for the ERT. Significant, but moderate correlations were found between the total scores of the three tests, but nearly all correlations between the same emotions across different tests were not significant. Furthermore, we found cross-over effects of the FEEST and EET to the ERT; participants attained higher total scores on the ERT when another emotion recognition test had been administered beforehand. Moreover, the ERT proved to be sensitive to the effects of age and education. The present findings indicate that despite some overlap, each emotion recognition test measures a unique part of the construct. The ERT seemed to be the most difficult test: performances were lowest and influenced by differences in age and education and it was the only test that showed a learning effect after practice with other tests. This highlights the importance of appropriate norms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33112932
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241297
pii: PONE-D-20-20165
pmc: PMC7592751
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0241297Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2015 Mar 29;1(1):103-11
pubmed: 27239497
Behav Neurol. 2007;18(1):31-6
pubmed: 17297217
Emotion. 2009 Oct;9(5):619-30
pubmed: 19803584
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008 Mar;14(2):318-26
pubmed: 18282329
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002 Apr;12(2):169-77
pubmed: 12015233
Percept Mot Skills. 2007 Apr;104(2):589-98
pubmed: 17566449
J Neuropsychol. 2014 Mar;8(1):75-93
pubmed: 23409767
Brain Cogn. 2005 Jul;58(2):193-201
pubmed: 15919551
Brain Cogn. 2004 Apr;54(3):179-85
pubmed: 15050772
Neuropsychol Rev. 2012 Sep;22(3):280-97
pubmed: 22577002
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2017 May;23(5):400-411
pubmed: 28399953
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):561-72
pubmed: 12689381
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2012 Nov;19(6):657-76
pubmed: 22372982
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23(6):824-45
pubmed: 23964996
Neuropsychologia. 2008 Jan 15;46(1):148-59
pubmed: 17915263
Brain Topogr. 2011 Jun;24(2):149-63
pubmed: 21350872
Soc Neurosci. 2017 Jun;12(3):303-307
pubmed: 27052026
Psychol Aging. 2010 Mar;25(1):38-47
pubmed: 20230126
Cogn Process. 2005 Jun;6(2):136-41
pubmed: 18219511
Behav Neurol. 2018 Apr 26;2018:1849794
pubmed: 29854017
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Jul;100(7):1300-1307
pubmed: 30831095
Brain Cogn. 2001 Dec;47(3):423-33
pubmed: 11748898
Neuropsychology. 2011 May;25(3):277-285
pubmed: 21463043
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(6):950-8
pubmed: 16198378
Emotion. 2004 Jun;4(2):201-6
pubmed: 15222856
PeerJ. 2018 Jul 25;6:e5278
pubmed: 30065878
Exp Aging Res. 2008 Jan-Mar;34(1):63-79
pubmed: 18189168
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2009 Apr;31(3):257-77
pubmed: 18720177
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2005;19(1):37-41
pubmed: 15383744
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2014;36(10):1031-41
pubmed: 25380130
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001 Apr;11(2):231-9
pubmed: 11301245
J Neurol Sci. 2011 Nov 15;310(1-2):237-40
pubmed: 21752398
Neuropsychologia. 2017 Aug;103:131-139
pubmed: 28723344
Int Psychogeriatr. 2016 Mar;28(3):477-85
pubmed: 26377027
Neuropsychology. 2007 Sep;21(5):532-9
pubmed: 17784801
Neuroimage. 2003 Jan;18(1):156-68
pubmed: 12507452
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017 Jul/Aug;32(4):E55-E65
pubmed: 28489703
Neuropsychologia. 1993 Feb;31(2):173-81
pubmed: 8455786
Emotion. 2013 Dec;13(6):1030-40
pubmed: 23914763
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 2;13(1):e0190634
pubmed: 29293674
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005 Jul;11(4):392-9
pubmed: 16209419
Eur Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;23(1):26-8
pubmed: 17937980
Neuropsychology. 2018 May;32(4):476-483
pubmed: 29809034
J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Mar;26(3):417-9
pubmed: 24707096
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1971 Feb;17(2):124-9
pubmed: 5542557
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 12;8(6):e65581
pubmed: 23776505
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jun;50(7):1211-21
pubmed: 22245006
Brain Cogn. 2003 Jun;52(1):61-9
pubmed: 12812805
Neuropsychology. 2015 Jul;29(4):509-21
pubmed: 25643220
Brain Cogn. 2009 Mar;69(2):442-9
pubmed: 18951674
Neuropsychologia. 1996 Apr;34(4):247-61
pubmed: 8657356
Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(6):575-84
pubmed: 11792399
BMC Neurosci. 2010 Sep 16;11:118
pubmed: 20846444
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 4;12(10):e0185513
pubmed: 28977015
Disabil Rehabil. 2006 Dec 30;28(24):1529-42
pubmed: 17178616
Neuropsychology. 2018 Feb;32(2):230-234
pubmed: 29035069
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Dec 30;224(3):192-203
pubmed: 25284626
Brain Cogn. 2011 Dec;77(3):412-8
pubmed: 21945238