Abstract
Despite research has massively focused on how emotions conveyed by faces are perceived, the perception of emotions’ authenticity is a topic that has been surprisingly overlooked. Here, we present the Emotion Authenticity Recognition (EAR) test, a test specifically developed using dynamic stimuli depicting authentic and posed emotions to evaluate the ability of individuals to correctly identify an emotion (emotion recognition index, ER Index) and classify its authenticity (authenticity recognition index (EA Index). The EAR test has been validated on 522 healthy participants and normative values are provided. Correlations with demographic characteristics, empathy and general cognitive status have been obtained revealing that both indices are negatively correlated with age, and positively with education, cognitive status and different facets of empathy. The EAR test offers a new ecological test to assess the ability to detect emotion authenticity that allow to explore the eventual social cognitive deficit even in patients otherwise cognitively intact.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Social cognition refers to the processing of social information that underlies abilities such as the detection of other’s emotions and the appropriate response to these emotions. As human beings are social creatures, these abilities are considered pivotal for effective social interactions and mental wellbeing [1]. Research has so far investigated many social cognitive abilities, that could be grouped into four categories: theory of mind (ToM), emotional empathy, emotion perception and social behaviour [2].
Among the four delineated categories of social cognition, clinical neuropsychologists have focused particularly on how we correctly identify emotions conveyed by faces, whose expressions are innate and universally recognized across cultures [3]. This subject has gained predominant attention within the realms of neuroscientific and neuropsychological research (e.g., [4,5,6,7,8]), leading to the understanding of the neural circuits involved in the processing of emotional faces (e.g., [9,10,11,12], of dynamic emotional faces (e.g., [12], of the central role of amygdala and insula for fear and disgust processing, respectively (e.g., [13, 14], of the role of task and stimuli characteristics on brain responses (e.g., [15], of the psychophysiological reactions to other’s emotions (e.g. [16,17,18] and so on.
This extensive knowledge clearly contributed to the massive clinical translation of the research findings that has been made possible thanks to the creation of psychometric tests to evaluate individuals’ ability to correctly recognize emotions expressed by others. Examples of these tests include, for instance, the Ekman 60 faces test emotion labelling and emotion discrimination [19, 20], the Reading the Mind in the Eye [21], the FACE test [22], the Geneva Emotion Recognition test [23]. Recently, neuropsychological batteries specifically designed to evaluate social cognition have been developed and they include tests to assess emotion recognition capabilities, among which the Florida Affect Battery [24], the Comprehensive affect testing system [25], the EMOTICOM [26], and one battery specifically created to measure recognition of facial expression of emotions [27].
The clinical application of these instruments allowed neuropsychologists to clarify that emotion recognition deficits appear to be a core cognitive phenotype of many brain-based disorders [28], being prevalent in neurological (e.g., [29,30,31,32,33,34,35] and psychiatric diseases (e.g., [36,37,38,39], but they also represent a core marker of developmental disorders (e.g., [40, 41], personality disorders [42,43,44] and personality traits [44,45,46,47].
Despite the significant advancements in understanding emotions’ recognition from faces and its impairment in brain-based disorders [2, 28, 48,49,50,51], a failure to engage and reciprocate socially, even when obvious social cues are given, could not derive solely by difficulties in the identification of emotions. Indeed, emotions identification can be considered sometimes an easy task: when the emotion is unambiguous (i.e., sufficiently intense and not blended, [52]), for example, recognizing that a smile means happiness and not anger can be a straightforward task. In this view, it has been postulated that the rational recognition of emotions can also rely on semantic knowledge [53]. In other words, the fact that the concomitant presence of upwardly pulled lip corners and raised cheeks represents a smile can be guided by conceptual knowledge of emotions. This idea is supported by data on patients with semantic variant of frontotemporal dementia, where semantic deficits are demonstrated to play a critical role in facial emotion recognition [53].
However, one of the most important aspects of communication and social interaction lies in the perceived authenticity of the expressed emotion, as influenced by genuine experience [54, 55], termed as “event-elicited” [56]. Indeed, impairment in social behaviour often arise as a direct consequence of emotional misinterpretation: even when people are able to adequately understand which emotion is expressed on other’s face, an anomalous behaviour in social situations could emerge from the failure in the identification of the authenticity of emotions expressed by others. Certainly, emotional expressions do not always reflect our true feelings [57]. Fear may arise from encountering a real snake, or sadness from the loss of a loved one. In this case emotions may be generated by genuine experiences [54, 55, 58, 59]. Conversely, individuals may deliberately simulate emotions without a corresponding genuine context in order to gain strategic advantages [60, 61].
This is extremely relevant for effective social interactions: for instance, a smile perceived as genuine might promote social interaction, while a smile perceived as not genuine might promote avoidance. Similarly, genuine anger might promote avoidance, while posed anger might not. Because mistaking posed emotions for genuine can result in negative outcomes for the perceiver, any impairment in the ability to distinguish authentic from posed emotions might help explain why individuals suffering from psychiatric and neurological disorders often find it difficult to engage socially [2, 62]. Furthermore, research has shown that distortion or misinterpretation of social cues can result in the generation of inappropriate social responses, such as aggressiveness or violence, especially in ambiguous situations [63]. Despite individuals can try to rely on semantic knowledge to overcome their difficulties [53], this might be extremely difficult, or even impossible, when they are asked to evaluate such a subtle feature, as the authenticity of emotion. Thus, determining whether individuals exhibit deficits in discerning emotional authenticity is extremely relevant both for a comprehensive understanding of individuals social abilities.
Despite the clear importance of the correct identification of emotions authenticity, so far this topic has been surprisingly neglected, remaining largely unexplored: virtually nothing is known on how we perceive and categorize emotion’s authenticity and about whether this ability is impaired in neurological and psychiatric diseases. Yet, the emotional stimuli classically used in research, as well as implemented in clinical tests, depict faces where emotions are posed [19]. Some dataset including both authentic and posed emotions are now available for research (for a review see [64]), but they have drawbacks (e.g., included only happiness, using only 2D images, absence of validation) limiting their usability in clinical and research settings. Using 2D static stimuli is not only poses problems of ecological validity, but also limits our understanding of facial cues. By contrast dynamic facial stimuli c a richer and more realistic representation of emotional expressions, which facilitate higher emotional judgement (i.e. intensity and arousal) and the accuracy of emotion recognition [65, 66].
The aforementioned issue is of particular relevance for neuropsychologists, as the few available neuroscientific research supports the idea that authentic and posed emotions may involve distinct neuro-cognitive mechanisms. First, authentic and posed expressions differ in terms of temporal and morphologic features [52, 67, 68], where authentic emotions can occur in millisecond (e.g., micro-expressions) and are often less intense and more subtle than posed expressions [69], while posed emotions are often prototypical and very intense [4]. Second, genuine and posed emotions differ in terms of neural bases. Evidence from a fMRI study [70] suggests that observing genuine emotions enhances the activity of the left medial superior frontal gyrus and the middle cingulate cortex bilaterally, as compared to observing fake emotions. Unfortunately, the authors employed only 2D static expressions, in turn limiting the perceived authenticity of the emotions by the observers. A second fMRI study revealed that the perception of authentic vocal emotion expression enhances emotion recognition and the activity of the ToM network [71].
Taken together, current evidence supports the idea that authentic and posed emotions can be processed by a two at least partially distinct neural networks, paving the way for the hypothesis that the ability to recognize emotion’s authenticity can be selectively damaged by brain disorders. Little is still known on this topic, as so far research focused on authentic smile only. Early research revealed that Duchenne smile (i.e., a smile characterized by the contraction of the orbicularis oculi, considered to be the marker for authentic smile) is considered more authentic than non-Duchenne smile [72], while later research supporting the idea that Duchenne smiles are not indicative of felt emotions as they can be deliberately displayed [73]. Additionally, both autism [74] and psychopathy [75, 76] are found to affect the ability to correctly identify an emotion as genuine or not. However, despite these promising results, the paradigms used to assess such ability remain experimental and they lack ecological validity (i.e., static images rather than 3D video).
For all these reasons, we have developed the Emotion Authenticity Recognition (EAR) test, a new test specifically created to evaluate individuals’ ability to discriminate between authentic and posed dynamic emotions. The EAR test was created to address limitations present in the available neuropsychological assessment aiming at evaluating emotion recognition: first, it includes stimuli depicting authentic (i.e., the emotions were elicited in the participants) and posed (i.e., the participants were asked to pose each emotion) emotions, taken from the Padova Emotional Dataset of Facial Expressions (PEDFE), a unique dataset of genuine and posed emotions [77]; second, it comprises dynamic emotional stimuli (i.e. short videoclips) in order to provide the observers with important information regarding the dynamic of facial expressions, helpful to distinguish genuine from posed emotions [52, 68, 78].
The present study aims at validating and deriving normative data of the EAR test in a large sample (n = 522) of neurologically and psychiatrically healthy adults for favoring its adoption in clinical practice and experimental research. To this aim, we also explored the association between the ability of recognizing emotions, and their authenticity, with empathic abilities and global cognitive functioning; the latter aspect only in participants aged > 50 years.
Materials and methods
Participants
In line with previous normative studies [79, 80], the minimum sample size was set at N = 286 by means of a power analysis (α = 0.05; 1-β = 0.9; f2 = 0.05) for multiple linear regression (dfnumerator = 3) analyses [81] via the R package pwr [82].
We recruited a sample of 522 Italian adults (306 women and 216 men) of different ages (mean: 39.97 ± standard deviation 14.64 years; range: 17–88 years) and educational level (mean: 15.12 ± 3.08 years, range: 5–24 years), most of them living in northern Italy. Inclusion criteria were: (1) absence of previous/current history of neurological, psychiatric and/or severe general medical condition; (2) normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing; (3) performance above cut-off score (equivalent score > 0) at the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Nasreddine et al., 2005; Italian normative data by [83], which was administered only to 148 participants who aged ≥ 50 years.
Sample stratification and participants’ demographic data are reported in Table 1.
Individuals took part in this study on a voluntary basis, after having provided their written informed consent. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Padova (Protocol Number: 3954), in compliance with the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration (1975).
Emotion authenticity recognition (EAR) test
The Emotion Authenticity Recognition (EAR) Test consists in the presentation of sixty brief videos, selected from the Padova Emotional Dataset of Facial Expressions (PEDFE; [77], a validated dataset including the dynamic emotional expression of the six universal emotions (happiness, surprise, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust) from 56 participants. Critically, participants’ emotional expressions could be authentic (i.e., the emotional status was really induced in the participants using an experimental procedure, n = 707) or posed (i.e., asking the participant to pose a specific emotion, n = 751).
For the current study, 60 dynamic stimuli were selected from the PEDFE dataset: 10 for each universal emotion, of which 5 depicting authentic emotions, and 5 depicting posed emotions (for a total of 30 authentic and 30 posed emotional expressions). Among the 1458 stimuli present in the PEDFE dataset, we incorporated into the EAR test those stimuli that exhibited the highest accuracy in recognizing emotions and correctly identifying the authenticity categorization within the normative sample, in order to attain a ceiling effect. The mean percentage of accuracy rate was 93.9% for emotion and 84.4% for authenticity recognition in the original validation sample.
Selected stimuli were 3.05 s long in average (standard deviation: 2.77, range: 0.79–13.66). The videos length does not differ between authentic and not authentic emotions (two independent sample t test p = .26) but differs between emotions, as some emotions are expressed very quickly (for instance fear, mean 1.69 s), while other emotions are very slow (for instance sadness, mean 7.91 s), as described in the original publication [77].
In the current study, volunteers were asked to observe the short videos depicting authentic and not authentic emotions and to: (1) identify the emotion conveyed by faces by choosing it among 6 alternatives, and (2) classify emotions as authentic or posed (see Fig. 1). One point is attributed for each correct identification or classification. Two indices can be obtained: (1) an Emotion Recognition Index (ER Index) and (2) an Emotion Authenticity recognition index (EA Index). The maximum score for each of the two index is 60.
Experimental procedure
Participants were tested in a quiet room by one interviewer. In addition to the EAR test, the MoCA [83, 84] and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; [85, 86] were administered.
The MoCA is a psychometrically robust screening test for detecting cognitive decline. It takes about 10 min to administer and comprises 30 items assessing multiple cognitive domains: short-term and working memory, visuospatial abilities, executive functioning, attention, and language.
The IRI is a 28-item self-report questionnaire to measure empathy through four subscales of 7-item each covering different facets of empathy: Empathic Concern, Personal Distress, which together reflect the affective side of empathy, and Perspective Taking and Fantasy measuring cognitive empathy. The test requires to report the extent to which each of the 28 statements describes oneself on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Does not describe me well”) to 4 (“Describes me very well”). Total score ranges 0–112, with higher scores indicating higher level of empathy. IRI compilation requires about 10 min.
Statistical analyses
Normality checks on raw data (number of correct responses) were performed by assessing skewness and kurtosis values (judged as abnormal if ≥|1| and |3|, respectively; [87], as well as by visually inspecting histograms and quantile-quantile plots [88].
In order to derive normative values for the EAR test, the Equivalent Scores (Ess) method was adopted [89, 90]. To this aim, raw scores were adjusted for significant intervening background predictors (or their transforms) via regression-based equations. The cut-off was then identified by computing outer and inner tolerance limits (oTL and iTL, respectively). Adjusted scores (Ass) were standardized into a 5-level quasi-continuous scale: ES = 0 (Ass ≤ oTL; “abnormal”); ES = 4 (Ass > Mdn; “normal”); ES = 1, 2, and 3 (oTL < Ass ≤ Mdn; respectively, “borderline,” “low-end normal,” “normal”).
Associations between task performance and IRI (and IRI subscales) and MoCA scores were assessed by means of Pearson’s parametric test.
SPSS 28.0.1 [91] and R 4.2.1 [92] were adopted to run the analyses. TLs and Ess thresholds were calculated according to software solutions provided by Aiello & Depaoli [93].
Results
Participants’ demographic measures are reported in Table 1, whereas participants’ test scores are summarized in Table 2.
Two separate regression analyses were conducted: the first involved the raw score for categorization of the emotions portrayed (i.e., Emotion Recognition Index, ER Index), while the second concerned the raw score for the identification of authentic vs. posed emotions (Emotion Authenticity recognition Index, EA Index).
EAR scores were negatively associated with age (ER Index r = − .498; p < .001, EA Index: r = − .450; p < .001), whereas positively with education (ER Index: r = .142; p = .001, EA Index: r = .161; p < .001).
EAR scores proved to be positively associated with global cognition (MoCA; ER Index: r = .450; p < .001; EA Index: r = .383; p < .001) and dispositional empathy (IRI; ER Index: r = .189; p < .001, EA Index: r = .232; p < .001) measures. Correlations between ER Index and EA Index and IRI subscales are presented graphically in Fig. 2.
Correlations between ER Index and EA Index scores and IRI subscales. ERIndex = Emotion Recognition Index; EAIndex = Authenticity Recognition Index; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PT = Perspective Taking; F = Fantasy; EC = Empathic Concern; PD = Personal Distress. *=p values < 0.05; **=p values < 0.01; ***=p values < 0.001
In multiple regression models, transformed age and sex significantly predicted both the ER Index and the EA Index. Adjustment equations and selected correction factors for ER Index and the EA Indexare shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. TLs and Ess for both ER Index and the EA Index are reported in Table 5.
Participants’ mean recognition scores for each emotion are reported in Table 6. Interestingly, while happiness, surprise, sadness and disgust are recognized with high accuracy (around 9 out of 10 correct recognition), the emotion of fear is the one with the lower correct recognition accuracy (6.54 ± 2.24 out of 10), followed by anger (7.96 ± 1.69 out of 10). See Table 6 for details.
Discussion
The EAR test represents a novel neuropsychological instrument specifically developed to evaluate the ability of individuals to identify emotions expressed by others as authentic or posed. It comprises of two subtests: one measuring the ability to correctly identify emotions (ER Index), while the EA Index subtest measures the ability to correctly identify the authenticity of emotions. This test is unprecedented, as so far, the ability to discriminate authentic from posed emotions have been largely overlooked. The current study provides normative data and cut-off values for the two EAR subscales: in the Italian population, socio-demographic factors such as age, education and gender influence the EAR scores, requiring the application of correction values in clinical contexts.
Although the purpose of our study was the validation of a new test, deriving normative values in healthy Italian populations, some interesting results emerged that deserve further discussion, and lend themselves to future investigation. Firstly, the present study showed in a large sample of healthy individuals that age and education are both related to both EAR scores, with age showing a higher predictive value. In particular, age is negatively associated with both ER Index and EA Index, meaning that as age increases, the performance decreases at both these sub-tests, while education is positively associated with both indices, meaning that as education increases, the performance at the test increases too. These data support and expand previous results showing that aging is associated with increased difficulties in recognizing emotional expressions [94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101], with gradual decline of emotion recognition across the healthy human lifespan. The novelty of our study is that ageing also diminishes the capacity to correctly discriminate whether an emotion is authentic or not. This can further contribute to explain why older people manifest more difficulty to socially engage [102, 103]. Previous literature also revealed that individuals with a higher educational level perform better on emotion recognition tasks [97, 104, 105]. The current results suggest that higher education contribute to a better performance in emotional authenticity discrimination too (EA score) (refs). It could be argued that growing up in educational environments characterized by intense and diverse social interactions may enhance not only the efficiency of emotion recognition but also the ability to detect signs of truthfulness or deception. This skill development is likely because such abilities also depend on contextual information, including bodily cues and co-occurring social information. These environments provide numerous opportunities for observing and interpreting a wide range of emotional expressions and social signals, thereby refining these critical social cognitive skills [106,107,108,109,110,111].
Furthermore, EAR scores correlate with both empathy and cognitive efficiency. The correlation with empathy (as measured by means of IRI) is positive, meaning that individuals with a higher self-reported empathy achieved better results both in emotion and in authenticity recognition. Despite this result supports previous literature on emotional recognition [112,113,114,115], the correlation between the EA Index and empathy, although significant, is moderate, suggesting that EAR and IRI evaluate different aspects of social cognitive functioning. Interestingly, while the ER Index correlates only with the fantasy subscale of the IRI (ability to put oneself into fictional situations and take the perspective of fictitious characters), in line with previous evidence (e.g., [116, 117], the EA index correlates not only with fantasy but also with perspective taking score, hence this index is associated with both the IRI subscales measuring cognitive empathy, which reflects more advanced capabilities similar to theory of mind (ToM) [2]. This finding suggests that the ability to recognize others’ emotions and their authenticity are different functions that both rely on cognitive empathy, but only the capacity to understand whether an emotion is authentic or not is favoured by the ability to adopt the psychological viewpoint of others, taking into consideration the perspective of others and distinguishing it form one’s own. This finding suggests that perspective taking may help to understand whether the observed emotion is genuine by increasing interpersonal accuracy, allowing us to capture the spontaneity, and therefore truthfulness, of the facial emotions we observe. Shifting attention on others’ faces can significantly increase the ability to detect expressive cues that convey information about their emotions (e.g., [118]; this improvement in decoding others’ emotional states and intentions aids in discerning the authenticity of the emotions being expressed.
The correlation between EAR (both indexes) and cognitive efficiency, as assessed by MoCA in participants over 50 years old is also positive, indicating that individuals with higher general cognitive efficiency also perform better at the EAR test. This makes the EAR a valuable tool to complement the screening of global cognitive status by allowing a quick and reliable assessment of emotion authenticity abilities.
A final result is that fear is the least accurately recognised amongst the six basic emotions. This effect has been repeatedly observed in previous research on emotions (e.g., [119,120,121,122,123], revealing that the errors are not random, but that fear is typically confused with surprise [121, 124, 125]. This is because fear and surprise share a similar muscle configuration making the facial expressions of these emotions visually similar [126,127,128]. Indeed, literature suggest that the greater the similarity between facial expressions of emotions, the more difficult it is to distinguish them perceptually [129]. Interestingly, the opposite effect (i.e. surprise being confused with fear) is not reported in literature and, congruently, our data revealed that the recognition of surprise is accurate. This can be explained by data supporting that in response to ambiguity, observers tended to bias their categorization responses toward less socially threatening emotions (e.g., “surprise”) [124].
We do believe that the adoption of the EAR test in clinical practice could provide further insight into brain-disorders neuropsychological underpinnings. Indeed, the EAR test provides a unique opportunity to clarify whether patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders tend to misinterpret the authenticity of perceived emotion. In this light, its usefulness is manifold. First, it could promote a better understanding of some symptoms. For instance, it can be postulated that paranoia could sometimes emerge from misinterpretation of other’s emotions as faked, not genuine, thus promoting suspiciousness and social avoidance. Second, it can help to clarify the origin of social impairment: in addition to ongoing psychiatric or neurological symptoms, misperception of the other’s emotional authenticity may play a causal role in the breakdown of interpersonal abilities, leading to difficulties in reciprocate socially and to social impairment, which is one of the most prominent and disabling features in psychiatric and neurological disorders [2, 62]. For example, the inclusion of tests that uses authentic rather than posed stimuli may improve the neuropsychological contribution to differential diagnosis between frontotemporal dementia subtypes, in which patients show difficulties in emotional processing [130, 131]. Third, it can help enhancing the understanding of the link between emotional authenticity perception deficit and violence/aggressiveness, considering previous evidence suggesting that violence can emerge as a consequence of a defective ability in understanding emotions conveyed by faces [63, 132]. In particular, ambiguous contexts seem to be associated with an increased risk of enacting violent behaviour. A difficulty in recognising an emotion as authentic or not creates ambiguity in social situations. Thus, given the negative impact that a misattribution of authenticity might have on the quality of life of individuals, the EAR test represents a reliable and quick instrument for the assessment of patient’s misinterpretation of the genuineness of emotions in everyday clinical practice, with the possibility of planning effective psychological interventions tailored to each patient’s profile. Critically, the EAR test could be applied to the cognitive evaluation of brain-based disorders (i.e., neurologic, psychiatric, developmental, etc.,) with a clear impact of future knowledge emerging from its application within the mental health community. Certainly, these are only hypotheses that should be tested in future studies.
Despite the undeniable advantages of the EAR test, this study is not devoid of limitations. A first drawback is that we did not calculate the convergent validity with other emotion recognition tests. Second, in this study we did not explore the link between the ability to identify emotion authenticity and the ToM. This topic is relevant as ToM is strongly implicated in emotion recognition [133] suggesting it may also be involved in authenticity recognition. This hypothesis is supported by our results revealing a correlation between EA and cognitive empathy. A third important limitation consist in the fact that individuals aged > 65 years are poorly represented. Thus, caution is needed when using the present regression-based adjustments in elderly, limiting the applicability of the EAR test for studies on normal or pathological aging. Further studies are needed to overcome these limitations.
In conclusion, in the current study we presented the validation and normative values of the Emotion Authenticity Recognition test (EAR test), a novel and promising neuropsychological instrument specifically developed to evaluate the ability of individuals to identify emotions expressed by others as authentic or posed. Given its simplicity of administration, as it only requires a laptop for stimuli presentation and involves verbal responses from patients, it can be easily implemented in everyday clinical neuropsychological practice. The EAR test evaluates a subtle social cognitive ability, providing clinicians with a unique opportunity to explore the potential social cognitive deficits even in patients otherwise considered cognitively intact. As this aspect of social cognition has been so far greatly neglected, there is an urgent need to raise awareness on the importance of these difficulties among clinicians, who can extremely benefit from this additional piece of the puzzle regarding the challenging assessment of social cognition in brain-based disorders. Future studies on the clinical usefulness of the EAR test as a cognitive screening test are necessary to explore its validity and sensitivity to identify cognitive deficits in neurological and psychiatric disorders, as well as in the earliest stages of these diseases and in their pre-clinical manifestations.
Data availability
All data have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository and can be accessed at https://osf.io/gfuqx/.
References
Santamaría-García H, Baez S, Gómez C, Rodríguez-Villagra O, Huepe D, Portela M, Reyes P, Klahr J, Matallana D, Ibanez A (2020) The role of social cognition skills and social determinants of health in predicting symptoms of mental illness. Translational Psychiatry 10:165. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0852-4
Henry JD, Von Hippel W, Molenberghs P, Lee T, Sachdev PS (2016) Clinical assessment of social cognitive function in neurological disorders. Nat Reviews Neurol 12:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.229
Ekman P, Friesen WV (1971) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J Personal Soc Psychol 17:124
Barrett LF, Adolphs R, Marsella S, Martinez AM, Pollak SD (2019) Emotional expressions reconsidered: challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychol Sci Public Interest 20:1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619889954
Gendron M, Roberson D, van der Vyver JM, Barrett LF (2014) Perceptions of emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: evidence from a remote culture. Emotion 14:251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036052
Jack RE, Sun W, Delis I, Garrod OG, Schyns PG (2016) Four not six: revealing culturally common facial expressions of emotion. J Exp Psychol Gen 145:708. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000162
Schirmer A, Adolphs R (2017) Emotion perception from face, voice, and touch: comparisons and convergence. Trends Cogn Sci 21:216–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.001
Xu P, Peng S, Luo Y-J, Gong G (2021) Facial expression recognition: a meta-analytic review of theoretical models and neuroimaging evidence. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews 127:820–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.023
Fusar-Poli P, Placentino A, Carletti F, Landi P, Allen P, Surguladze S, Benedetti F, Abbamonte M, Gasparotti R, Barale F (2009) Functional atlas of emotional faces processing: a voxel-based meta-analysis of 105 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Psychiatry Neurosci 34:418–432
Liu M, Liu CH, Zheng S, Zhao K, Fu X (2021) Reexamining the neural network involved in perception of facial expression: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews 131:179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.024
Vuilleumier P, Pourtois G (2007) Distributed and interactive brain mechanisms during emotion face perception: evidence from functional neuroimaging. Neuropsychologia 45:174–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.06.003
Zinchenko O, Yaple ZA, Arsalidou M (2018) Brain responses to dynamic facial expressions: a normative meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 12:227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00227
LeDoux J (2003) The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cell Mol Neurobiol 23:727–738. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025048802629
Wicker B, Keysers C, Plailly J, Royet J-P, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G (2003) Both of us disgusted in my insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 40:655–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00679-2
Müller VI, Höhner Y, Eickhoff SB (2018) Influence of task instructions and stimuli on the neural network of face processing: an ALE meta-analysis. Cortex 103:240–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.011
Alpers GW, Adolph D, Pauli P (2011) Emotional scenes and facial expressions elicit different psychophysiological responses. Int J Psychophysiol 80:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.01.010
Dimberg U, Öhman A (1996) Behold the wrath: psychophysiological responses to facial stimuli. Motivation Emot 20:149–182
Gantiva C, Araujo A, Calderón L, Gómez P, Reina F (2019) Psychophysiological responses to facial expression of surprise, sadness, and disgust. Australian J Psychol 71:100–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12222
Ekman P, Friesen WV (1976) Measuring facial movement. Environ Psychol Nonverbal Behav 1:56–75
Young AW, Perrett D, Calder A, Sprengelmeyer R, Ekman P (2002) Facial expressions of emotion: Stimuli and tests (FEEST). Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St Edmunds
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I (2001) The reading the mind in the eyes test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Disciplines 42:241–251
Terruzzi S, Funghi G, Meli C, Barozzi N, Zappini F, Papagno C, Dodich A (2023) The FACE test: a new neuropsychological task to assess the recognition of complex mental states from faces. Neurol Sci 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-023-06697-w
Schlegel K, Grandjean D, Scherer KR (2014) Introducing the Geneva emotion recognition test: an example of Rasch-based test development. Psychol Assess 26:666. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035246
Bowers D, Blonder LX, Heilman KM (1998) Florida affect battery. Center for Neuropsychological Studies, Department of Neurology Florida, USA
Froming KB, Ekman P, Levy M (2006) Comprehensive Affect Testing System. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06823-000
Bland AR, Roiser JP, Mehta MA, Schei T, Boland H, Campbell-Meiklejohn DK, Emsley RA, Munafo MR, Penton-Voak IS, Seara-Cardoso A (2016) EMOTICOM: a neuropsychological test battery to evaluate emotion, motivation, impulsivity, and social cognition. Front Behav Neurosci 10:25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00025
Wilhelm O, Hildebrandt A, Manske K, Schacht A, Sommer W (2014) Test battery for measuring the perception and recognition of facial expressions of emotion. Front Psychol 5:404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00404
Cotter J, Granger K, Backx R, Hobbs M, Looi CY, Barnett JH (2018) Social cognitive dysfunction as a clinical marker: a systematic review of meta-analyses across 30 clinical conditions. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews 84:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.014
Argaud S, Vérin M, Sauleau P, Grandjean D (2018) Facial emotion recognition in Parkinson’s disease: a review and new hypotheses. Mov Disord 33:554–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27305
Bertini C, Starita F, Passamonti C, Santoro F, Zamponi N, Michelucci R, Scarpazza C (2020) Fear-specific enhancement of tactile perception is disrupted after amygdala lesion. J Neuropsychol 14:165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12178
Carelli L, Solca F, Tagini S, Torre S, Verde F, Ticozzi N, Consonni M, Ferrucci R, Pravettoni G, Poletti B (2021) Emotional processing and experience in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic and critical review. Brain Sci 11:1356. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101356
Goodkind MS, Sturm VE, Ascher EA, Shdo SM, Miller BL, Rankin KP, Levenson RW (2015) Emotion recognition in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: a new film-based assessment. Emotion 15:416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039261
Murphy JM, Bennett JM, de la Piedad Garcia X, Willis ML (2022) Emotion recognition and traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev 32:520–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09510-7
Pfaff L, Gounot D, Chanson J-B, de Seze J, Blanc F (2021) Emotional experience is increased and emotion recognition decreased in multiple sclerosis. Sci Rep 11:21885. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01139-z
Strijkert F, Huitema RB, Spikman JM (2022) Measuring emotion recognition: added value in diagnosing dementia of the Alzheimer’s disease type. J Neuropsychol 16:263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12263
Gao Z, Zhao W, Liu S, Liu Z, Yang C, Xu Y (2021) Facial emotion recognition in schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry 12:633717. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.633717
Krause FC, Linardatos E, Fresco DM, Moore MT (2021) Facial emotion recognition in major depressive disorder: a meta-analytic review. J Affect Disord 293:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.053
Pena-Garijo J, Lacruz M, Masanet MJ, Palop-Grau A, Plaza R, Hernandez-Merino A, Edo-Villamon S, Valllina O (2023) Specific facial emotion recognition deficits across the course of psychosis: a comparison of individuals with low-risk, high-risk, first-episode psychosis and multi-episode schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Psychiatry Res 320:115029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.115029
Priyesh C, Suryavanshi CA, Sasidharan A, Bhandary R, Behere RV, Nayak KR (2022) Facial emotion Recognition, Misattribution, and response time in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder. Neurophysiology 53:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11062-022-09923-x
Gagliardi C, Frigerio E, Burt DM, Cazzaniga I, Perrett DI, Borgatti R (2003) Facial expression recognition in Williams syndrome. Neuropsychologia 41:733–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00178-1
Wieckowski AT, Flynn LT, Richey JA, Gracanin D, White SW (2020) Measuring change in facial emotion recognition in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. Autism 24:1607–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320925334
Daros AR, Zakzanis KK, Ruocco AC (2013) Facial emotion recognition in borderline personality disorder. Psychol Med 43:1953–1963. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712002607
Godfrey E, Kelly Grealy M, Whyte O’Sullivan E, Sullivan S, Brady F, Carroll G, Burke T (2022) Emotion recognition and the Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord): outcomes and community-based validation. Brain Sci 12:1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111512
Ritzl A, Csukly G, Balázs K, Égerházi A (2018) Facial emotion recognition deficits and alexithymia in borderline, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders. Psychiatry Res 270:154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.017
Scarpazza C, di Pellegrino G, Ladavas E (2014) Emotional modulation of touch in alexithymia. Emotion 14:602. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035888
Scarpazza C, Ladavas E, di Pellegrino G (2015) Dissociation between emotional remapping of fear and disgust in alexithymia. PLoS ONE 10:e0140229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140229
Starita F, Borhani K, Bertini C, Scarpazza C (2018) Alexithymia is related to the need for more emotional intensity to identify static fearful facial expressions. Front Psychol 9:929. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00929
Bediou B, Brunelin J, d’Amato T, Fecteau S, Saoud M, Hénaff M-A, Krolak-Salmon P (2012) A comparison of facial emotion processing in neurological and psychiatric conditions. Front Psychol 3:98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00098
Collin L, Bindra J, Raju M, Gillberg C, Minnis H (2013) Facial emotion recognition in child psychiatry: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil 34:1505–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.008
Marcó-García S, Ferrer-Quintero M, Usall J, Ochoa S, Del Cacho N, Huerta-Ramos E (2019) Facial emotion recognition in neurological disorders: a narrative review. Rev Neurol 69:207–219. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.6905.2019047
Porcelli S, Van Der Wee N, van der Werff S, Aghajani M, Glennon JC, van Heukelum S, Mogavero F, Lobo A, Olivera FJ, Lobo E (2019) Social brain, social dysfunction and social withdrawal. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews 97:10–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.012
Straulino E, Scarpazza C, Sartori L (2023) What is missing in the study of emotion expression? Front Psychol 14:1158136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1158136
Bertoux M, Duclos H, Caillaud M, Segobin S, Merck C, de La Sayette V, Belliard S, Desgranges B, Eustache F, Laisney M (2020) When affect overlaps with concept: emotion recognition in semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Brain 143:3850–3864. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa313
Lu W, Ngai CSB, Yang L (2020) The importance of genuineness in public engagement—an exploratory study of pediatric communication on social media in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:7078
Rooney B, Benson C, Hennessy E (2012) The apparent reality of movies and emotional arousal: a study using physiological and self-report measures. Poetics 40:405–422
Dawel A, Wright L, Irons J, Dumbleton R, Palermo R, O’Kearney R, McKone E (2017) Perceived emotion genuineness: normative ratings for popular facial expression stimuli and the development of perceived-as-genuine and perceived-as-fake sets. Behav Res Methods 49:1539–1562
Durán JI, Fernández-Dols J-M (2021) Do emotions result in their predicted facial expressions? A meta-analysis of studies on the co-occurrence of expression and emotion. Emotion 21:1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001015
Zloteanu M, Krumhuber EG (2021) Expression authenticity: the role of genuine and deliberate displays in emotion perception. Front Psychol 11:611248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.611248
Deckert M, Schmoeger M, Auff E, Willinger U (2020) Subjective emotional arousal: an explorative study on the role of gender, age, intensity, emotion regulation difficulties, depression and anxiety symptoms, and meta-emotion. Psychol Res 84:1857–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01197-z
Ekman P, Rosenberg EL (2005) What the Face RevealsBasic and Applied studies of spontaneous expression using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Oxford University Press
Monaro M, Maldera S, Scarpazza C, Sartori G, Navarin N (2022) Detecting deception through facial expressions in a dataset of videotaped interviews: a comparison between human judges and machine learning models. Comput Hum Behav 127:107063
Meyer-Lindenberg A, Tost H (2012) Neural mechanisms of social risk for psychiatric disorders. Nat Neurosci 15:663–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3083
Hoaken PN, Allaby DB, Earle J (2007) Executive cognitive functioning and the recognition of facial expressions of emotion in incarcerated violent offenders, non-violent offenders, and controls. Aggressive Behavior: Official J Int Soc Res Aggress 33:412–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20194
Jia S, Wang S, Hu C, Webster PJ, Li X (2021) Detection of genuine and posed facial expressions of emotion: databases and methods. Front Psychol 11:580287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580287
Krumhuber EG, Kappas A, Manstead AS (2013) Effects of dynamic aspects of facial expressions: a review. Emot Rev 5:41–46
Dobs K, Bülthoff I, Schultz J (2018) Use and usefulness of dynamic face stimuli for face perception studies—A review of behavioral findings and methodology. Front Psychol 9:371229
Straulino E, Scarpazza C, Spoto A, Betti S, Chozas Barrientos B, Sartori L (2023) The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Facial Movements reveals the left side of a posed smile. Biology 12:1160
Namba S, Matsui H, Zloteanu M (2021) Distinct temporal features of genuine and deliberate facial expressions of surprise. Sci Rep 11:3362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83077-4
Tcherkassof A, Dupré D, Meillon B, Mandran N, Dubois M, Adam J-M (2013) DynEmo: a video database of natural facial expressions of emotions. Int J Multimedia Its Appl 5:61–80
McLellan TL, Wilcke JC, Johnston L, Watts R, Miles LK (2012) Sensitivity to posed and genuine displays of happiness and sadness: a fMRI study. Neurosci Lett 531:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.039
Drolet M, Schubotz RI, Fischer J, Cognitive (2012) Affect Behav Neurosci 12:140–150
Gunnery SD, Ruben MA (2016) Perceptions of Duchenne and Non-duchenne smiles: a meta-analysis. Cogn Emot 30:501–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1018817
Krumhuber EG, Kappas A (2022) More what Duchenne smiles do, less what they express. Perspect Psychol Sci 17:1566–1575. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211071083
Boraston ZL, Corden B, Miles LK, Skuse DH, Blakemore S-J (2008) Brief report: perception of genuine and posed smiles by individuals with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 38:574–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0421-1
Dawel A, Wright L, Dumbleton R, McKone E (2019) All tears are crocodile tears: impaired perception of emotion authenticity in psychopathic traits. Personality Disorders: Theory Res Treat 10:185. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000301
Glenn AL, Efferson LM, Kastner RM, Johnson AK, Remmel RJ (2022) Psychopathy and the perception of the genuineness of facial expressions. Pers Indiv Differ 187:111439. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000301
Miolla A, Cardaioli M, Scarpazza C (2022) Padova Emotional dataset of facial expressions (PEDFE): a unique dataset of genuine and posed emotional facial expressions. Behav Res Methods 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01914-4
Namba S, Makihara S, Kabir RS, Miyatani M, Nakao T (2017) Spontaneous facial expressions are different from posed facial expressions: morphological properties and dynamic sequences. Curr Psychol 36:593–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9448-9
Brugnolo A, De Carli F, Accardo J, Amore M, Bosia L, Bruzzaniti C, Cappa S, Cocito L, Colazzo G, Ferrara M (2016) An updated Italian normative dataset for the Stroop color word test (SCWT). Neurol Sci 37:365–372
Tremolizzo L, Lizio A, Santangelo G, Diamanti S, Lunetta C, Gerardi F, Messina S, La Foresta S, Riva N, Falzone Y (2020) ALS cognitive behavioral screen (ALS-CBS): normative values for the Italian population and clinical usability. Neurol Sci 41:835–841
Rothstein HR, Borenstein M, Cohen J, Pollack S (1990) Statistical Power Analysis for Multiple Regression/Correlation: a computer program. Educ Psychol Meas 50:819–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490504009
Champely S, Ekstrom C, Dalgaard P, Gill J (2020) pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.3-0
Aiello EN, Gramegna C, Esposito A, Gazzaniga V, Zago S, Difonzo T, Maddaluno O, Appollonio I, Bolognini N (2022) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): updated norms and psychometric insights into adaptive testing from healthy individuals in Northern Italy. 1–8. Aging clinical and experimental researchhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-021-01943-7
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Personal Soc Psychol 44:113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.588934
Maddaluno O, Aiello EN, Roncoroni C, Prunas A, Bolognini N (2022) The reading the mind in the eyes test, Iowa gambling task and interpersonal reactivity index: normative data in an Italian population sample. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 37:929–938. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acab100
Kim H-Y (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dentistry Endodontics 38:52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S (2012) Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metabolism 10:486. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
Capitani E, Laiacona M (1997) Composite neuropsychological batteries and demographic correction: standardization based on equivalent scores, with a review of published data. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 19:795–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639708403761
Capitani E, Laiacona M (2017) Outer and inner tolerance limits: their usefulness for the construction of norms and the standardization of neuropsychological tests. Clin Neuropsychol 31:1219–1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1334830
IBM Corp (2021) IBM Corp. Released 2021. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY
Core Team R (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Aiello EN, Depaoli EG (2022) Norms and standardizations in neuropsychology via equivalent scores: software solutions and practical guides. Neurol Sci 43:961–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05374-0
Abbruzzese L, Magnani N, Robertson IH, Mancuso M (2019) Age and gender differences in emotion recognition. Front Psychol 10:2371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02371
Calder AJ, Keane J, Manly T, Sprengelmeyer R, Scott S, Nimmo-Smith I, Young AW (2003) Facial expression recognition across the adult life span. Neuropsychologia 41:195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00149-5
Krendl AC, Ambady N (2010) Older adults’ decoding of emotions: role of dynamic versus static cues and age-related cognitive decline. Psychol Aging 25:788. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020607
Mill A, Allik J, Realo A, Valk R (2009) Age-related differences in emotion recognition ability: a cross-sectional study. Emotion 9:619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016562
Ruffman T (2011) Ecological validity and age-related change in emotion recognition. J Nonverbal Behav 35:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-011-0116-3
Ruffman T, Henry JD, Livingstone V, Phillips LH (2008) A meta-analytic review of emotion recognition and aging: implications for neuropsychological models of aging. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews 32:863–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.01.001
Visser M (2020) Emotion recognition and aging. Comparing a labeling task with a categorization task using facial representations. Front Psychol 11:139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00139
Calder AJ, Keane J, Cole J, Campbell R, Young AW (2000) Facial expression recognition by people with Möbius syndrome. Cognit Neuropsychol 17:73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432900380490
Goll JC, Charlesworth G, Scior K, Stott J (2015) Barriers to social participation among lonely older adults: the influence of social fears and identity. PLoS ONE 10:e0116664. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116664
Kuiper JS, Zuidersma M, Zuidema SU, Burgerhof JG, Stolk RP, Oude Voshaar RC, Smidt N (2016) Social relationships and cognitive decline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol 45:1169–1206. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw089
Trauffer NM, Widen SC, Russell JA (2013) Education and the attribution of emotion to facial expressions. Psihologijske teme 22:237–247
Wolfgang A, Cohen M (1988) Sensitivity of canadians, latin americans, ethiopians, and israelis to interracial facial expressions of emotions. Int J Intercultural Relations 12:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90045-4
Demenescu LR, Stan A, Kortekaas R, Van Der Wee NJA, Veltman DJ, Aleman A (2014) On the connection between level of education and the neural circuitry of emotion perception. Front Hum Neurosci 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00866
Tipirneni S, Leal S (2022) Deciphering facial expressions: factors that affect emotion recognition. J Student Res 11
Huelle JO, Sack B, Broer K, Komlewa I, Anders S (2014) Unsupervised learning of facial emotion decoding skills. Front Hum Neurosci 8:77
Denervaud S, Mumenthaler C, Gentaz E, Sander D (2020) Emotion recognition development: preliminary evidence for an effect of school pedagogical practices. Learn Instruction 69:101353
Aviezer H, Ensenberg N, Hassin RR (2017) The inherently contextualized nature of facial emotion perception. Curr Opin Psychol 17:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.006
Mumenthaler C, Sander D (2019) Socio-affective inferential mechanisms involved in emotion. Foundations of affective social learning: Conceptualizing the social transmission of value 142
Austin EJ (2004) An investigation of the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and emotional task performance. Pers Indiv Differ 36:1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.006
Besel LD, Yuille JC (2010) Individual differences in empathy: the role of facial expression recognition. Pers Indiv Differ 49:107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.013
Gery I, Miljkovitch R, Berthoz S, Soussignan R (2009) Empathy and recognition of facial expressions of emotion in sex offenders, non-sex offenders and normal controls. Psychiatry Res 165:252–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.11.006
Moret-Tatay C, Mundi-Ricós P, Irigaray TQ (2022) The relationship between Face Processing, Cognitive and Affective Empathy. Behav Sci 13:21. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010021
Beals K, Sperry SH, Sheffield JM (2022) Empathy, Emotion Recognition, and paranoia in the General Population. Front Psychol 13:804178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.804178
Neves L, Cordeiro C, Scott SK, Castro SL, Lima CF (2018) High emotional contagion and empathy are associated with enhanced detection of emotional authenticity in laughter. Q J Experimental Psychol 71:2355–2363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817741800
Israelashvili J, Sauter D, Fischer A (2019) How well can we assess our ability to Understand others’ feelings? Beliefs about taking others’ perspectives and actual understanding of others’ emotions. Front Psychol 10:2475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02475
Calvo MG, Lundqvist D (2008) Facial expressions of emotion (KDEF): identification under different display-duration conditions. Behav Res Methods 40:109–115. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.1.109
Matsumoto D, Ekman P (1989) American-japanese cultural differences in intensity ratings of facial expressions of emotion. Motivation Emot 13:143–157
Matsumoto D, Hwang HS (2011) Judgments of facial expressions of emotion in profile. Emotion 11:1223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024356
Smith FW, Schyns PG (2009) Smile through your fear and sadness: transmitting and identifying facial expression signals over a range of viewing distances. Psychol Sci 20:1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02427.x
Tracy JL, Robins RW (2008) The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion 8:81. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.81
Jack RE, Blais C, Scheepers C, Schyns PG, Caldara R (2009) Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Curr Biol 19:1543–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051
Russell JA, Bullock M (1986) On the dimensions preschoolers use to interpret facial expressions of emotion. Dev Psychol 22:97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.97
Camras LA (1980) Children’s understanding of facial expressions used during conflict encounters. Child Dev 879–885
Gagnon M, Gosselin P, Hudon-ven Der Buhs I, Larocque K, Milliard K (2010) Children’s recognition and discrimination of fear and disgust facial expressions. J Nonverbal Behav 34:27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0076-z
Gosselin P, Simard J (1999) Children’s knowledge of facial expressions of emotions: distinguishing fear and surprise. J Genet Psychol 160:181–193
Roy-Charland A, Perron M, Beaudry O, Eady K (2014) Confusion of fear and surprise: a test of the perceptual-attentional limitation hypothesis with eye movement monitoring. Cogn Emot 28:1214–1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.878687
Kumfor F, Piguet O (2012) Disturbance of emotion processing in frontotemporal dementia: a synthesis of cognitive and neuroimaging findings. Neuropsychol Rev 22:280–297
Diehl-Schmid J, Pohl C, Ruprecht C, Wagenpfeil S, Foerstl H, Kurz A (2007) The Ekman 60 faces test as a diagnostic instrument in frontotemporal dementia. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 22:459–464
Hunnikin LM, Wells AE, Ash DP, Van Goozen SH (2020) The nature and extent of emotion recognition and empathy impairments in children showing disruptive behaviour referred into a crime prevention programme. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29:363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01358-w
Lee SB, Koo SJ, Song YY, Lee MK, Jeong Y-J, Kwon C, Park KR, Park JY, Kang JI, Lee E (2014) Theory of mind as a mediator of reasoning and facial emotion recognition: findings from 200 healthy people. Psychiatry Invest 11:105
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Giulia Grimaldi, Erika Strada and Barbara Pasquini for helping with data collection.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This research was supported by the PRIN PNNR 2022 to CS [project P2022LC5AK] and by Ricerca Corrente from the IRCCS S Camillo to CS, and partially by Ricerca Corrente from the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano to NB. This work was carried out within the scope of the project “use-inspired basic research”, for which the Department of General Psychology of the University of Padova has been recognized as “Dipartimento di eccellenza” by the Ministry of University and Research.
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.S.: conceptualization, drafting, revision; C.G., C.C: data analysis, revision; R.P., M.C.S., A.N.P., T.D., S.Z: data collection, revision; B.N.: conceptualization, drafting, revision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of University of Padova. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Scarpazza, C., Gramegna, C., Costa, C. et al. The Emotion Authenticity Recognition (EAR) test: normative data of an innovative test using dynamic emotional stimuli to evaluate the ability to recognize the authenticity of emotions expressed by faces. Neurol Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07689-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07689-0