How is facial expression coded?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2015 ARVO. Facial expression is theorized to be visually represented in a multidimensional expression space, relative to a norm. This norm-based coding is typically argued to be implemented by a two-pool opponent coding system. However, the evidence supporting the opponent coding of expression cannot rule out the presence of a third channel tuned to the center of each coded dimension. Here we used a paradigm not previously applied to facial expression to determine whether a central-channel model is necessary to explain expression coding. Participants identified expressions taken from a fear/antifear trajectory, first at baseline and then in two adaptation conditions. In one condition, participants adapted to the expression at the center of the trajectory. In the other condition, participants adapted to alternating images from the two ends of the trajectory. The range of expressions that participants perceived as lying at the center of the trajectory narrowed in both conditions, a pattern that is not predicted by the central-channel model but can be explained by the opponent-coding model. Adaptation to the center of the trajectory also increased identification of both fear and antifear, which may indicate a functional benefit for adaptive coding of facial expression.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Vision
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2015

Fingerprint

Facial Expression
Fear

Cite this

@article{da5bc22800ea475584bb494f051a7818,
title = "How is facial expression coded?",
abstract = "{\circledC} 2015 ARVO. Facial expression is theorized to be visually represented in a multidimensional expression space, relative to a norm. This norm-based coding is typically argued to be implemented by a two-pool opponent coding system. However, the evidence supporting the opponent coding of expression cannot rule out the presence of a third channel tuned to the center of each coded dimension. Here we used a paradigm not previously applied to facial expression to determine whether a central-channel model is necessary to explain expression coding. Participants identified expressions taken from a fear/antifear trajectory, first at baseline and then in two adaptation conditions. In one condition, participants adapted to the expression at the center of the trajectory. In the other condition, participants adapted to alternating images from the two ends of the trajectory. The range of expressions that participants perceived as lying at the center of the trajectory narrowed in both conditions, a pattern that is not predicted by the central-channel model but can be explained by the opponent-coding model. Adaptation to the center of the trajectory also increased identification of both fear and antifear, which may indicate a functional benefit for adaptive coding of facial expression.",
author = "Nichola Burton and Linda Jeffery and Andrew Calder and Gillian Rhodes",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1167/15.1.1",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "Journal of Vision",
issn = "1534-7362",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)",
number = "1",

}

How is facial expression coded? / Burton, Nichola; Jeffery, Linda; Calder, Andrew; Rhodes, Gillian.

In: Journal of Vision, Vol. 15, No. 1, 02.01.2015, p. 1-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How is facial expression coded?

AU - Burton, Nichola

AU - Jeffery, Linda

AU - Calder, Andrew

AU - Rhodes, Gillian

PY - 2015/1/2

Y1 - 2015/1/2

N2 - © 2015 ARVO. Facial expression is theorized to be visually represented in a multidimensional expression space, relative to a norm. This norm-based coding is typically argued to be implemented by a two-pool opponent coding system. However, the evidence supporting the opponent coding of expression cannot rule out the presence of a third channel tuned to the center of each coded dimension. Here we used a paradigm not previously applied to facial expression to determine whether a central-channel model is necessary to explain expression coding. Participants identified expressions taken from a fear/antifear trajectory, first at baseline and then in two adaptation conditions. In one condition, participants adapted to the expression at the center of the trajectory. In the other condition, participants adapted to alternating images from the two ends of the trajectory. The range of expressions that participants perceived as lying at the center of the trajectory narrowed in both conditions, a pattern that is not predicted by the central-channel model but can be explained by the opponent-coding model. Adaptation to the center of the trajectory also increased identification of both fear and antifear, which may indicate a functional benefit for adaptive coding of facial expression.

AB - © 2015 ARVO. Facial expression is theorized to be visually represented in a multidimensional expression space, relative to a norm. This norm-based coding is typically argued to be implemented by a two-pool opponent coding system. However, the evidence supporting the opponent coding of expression cannot rule out the presence of a third channel tuned to the center of each coded dimension. Here we used a paradigm not previously applied to facial expression to determine whether a central-channel model is necessary to explain expression coding. Participants identified expressions taken from a fear/antifear trajectory, first at baseline and then in two adaptation conditions. In one condition, participants adapted to the expression at the center of the trajectory. In the other condition, participants adapted to alternating images from the two ends of the trajectory. The range of expressions that participants perceived as lying at the center of the trajectory narrowed in both conditions, a pattern that is not predicted by the central-channel model but can be explained by the opponent-coding model. Adaptation to the center of the trajectory also increased identification of both fear and antifear, which may indicate a functional benefit for adaptive coding of facial expression.

U2 - 10.1167/15.1.1

DO - 10.1167/15.1.1

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Vision

JF - Journal of Vision

SN - 1534-7362

IS - 1

ER -