Mean affect rating (and SD) according to instruction condition (distraction, reappraisal, look), social content (social, nonsocial), and emotional content (moral violation, threat-related).

<p>Mean affect rating (and SD) according to instruction condition (distraction, reappraisal, look), social content (social, nonsocial), and emotional content (moral violation, threat-related).</p

Mean affect rating (and SD) for 12-, 13- and 15-year-old adolescents according to instruction condition (distraction, reappraisal, look), emotional content (moral violation, threat-related) and social content (social, nonsocial).

<p>Mean affect rating (and SD) for 12-, 13- and 15-year-old adolescents according to instruction condition (distraction, reappraisal, look), emotional content (moral violation, threat-related) and social content (social, nonsocial).</p

Regulation effectiveness as a function of regulation strategy and age.

<p>The error bars correspond to one standard error.</p

Differences in reporting of regulation strategies between 12-year-old, 13-year-old and 15-year-old adolescents: means, standard deviations, and F-tests.

<p>Differences in reporting of regulation strategies between 12-year-old, 13-year-old and 15-year-old adolescents: means, standard deviations, and F-tests.</p

Are 6-month-old human infants able to transfer emotional information (happy or angry) from voices to faces? An eye-tracking study

<div><p>The present study examined whether 6-month-old infants could transfer amodal information (i.e. independently of sensory modalities) from emotional voices to emotional faces. Thus, sequences of <i>successive</i> emotional stimuli (voice or face from one sensory modality -auditory- to another sensory modality -visual-), corresponding to a cross-modal transfer, were displayed to 24 infants. Each sequence presented an emotional (angry or happy) or neutral voice, uniquely, followed by the simultaneous presentation of two static emotional faces (angry or happy, congruous or incongruous with the emotional voice). Eye movements in response to the visual stimuli were recorded with an eye-tracker. First, results suggested no difference in infants’ looking time to happy or angry face after listening to the neutral voice or the angry voice. Nevertheless, after listening to the happy voice, infants looked longer at the incongruent angry face (the mouth area in particular) than the congruent happy face. These results revealed that a cross-modal transfer (from auditory to visual modalities) is possible for 6-month-old infants only after the presentation of a happy voice, suggesting that they recognize this emotion amodally.</p></div

Looking times at happy or angry AOIs (mouth or eyes).

<p>Infants’ mean looking time (s) in function of the emotional voices (happy or angry) and emotional AOIs (happy: green or angry: blue). The angry mouth is looked at longer than the happy mouth <i>F</i>(1, 23) = 12.39, <i>p</i> < .01. After the happy voice, the angry mouth is looked at longer than the happy mouth (<i>F</i>(1, 23) = 8.32, <i>p</i> < .01). The vertical bars represent positive standard errors (s.e.m.), **<i>p</i> < .01.</p

Visual stimuli.

<p>The angry face (right) and the happy face (left) with faces from The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces—KDEF.</p

Area of interest representing the eyes and the mouth.

<p>The angry face (right) and the happy face (left). Faces from The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces—KDEF.</p

Schematic representation of the successive presentation of all stimuli.

<p>Schematic representation of the successive presentation of all stimuli.</p

Looking time at happy or angry faces.

<p>Infants’ mean looking time (s) in function of voices (angry or happy) and emotional faces (angry: blue or happy: green). After hearing a happy voice, infants look longer at the angry face than the happy face (<i>F</i>(1, 23) = 4.85, <i>p</i> < .05). The vertical bars represent positive standard errors (s.e.m.),*p < .05.</p