New Tests to Measure Individual Differences in Matching and Labelling Facial Expressions of Emotion, and Their Association with Ability to Recognise Vocal Emotions and Facial Identity

Although good tests are available for diagnosing clinical impairments in face expression processing, there is a lack of strong tests for assessing "individual differences"--that is, differences in ability between individuals within the typical, nonclinical, range. Here, we develop two new tests, one for expression perception (an odd-man-out matching task in which participants select which one of three faces displays a different expression) and one additionally requiring explicit identification of the emotion (a labelling task in which participants select one of six verbal labels). We demonstrate validity (careful check of individual items, large inversion effects, independence from nonverbal IQ, convergent validity with a previous labelling task), reliability (Cronbach's alphas of.77 and.76 respectively), and wide individual differences across the typical population. We then demonstrate the usefulness of the tests by addressing theoretical questions regarding the structure of face processing, specifically the extent to which the following processes are common or distinct: (a) perceptual matching and explicit labelling of expression (modest correlation between matching and labelling supported partial independence); (b) judgement of expressions from faces and voices (results argued labelling tasks tap into a multi-modal system, while matching tasks tap distinct perceptual processes); and (c) expression and identity processing (results argued for a common first step of perceptual processing for expression and identity).This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (http://www.arc.gov.au/) grant DP110100850 to RP and EM and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021) http://www.ccd.edu.au. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Brief intervention to reduce risky drinking in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risky drinking in pregnancy by UK women is likely to result in many alcohol-exposed pregnancies. Studies from the USA suggest that brief intervention has promise for alcohol risk reduction in antenatal care. However, further research is needed to establish whether this evidence from the USA is applicable to the UK. This pilot study aims to investigate whether pregnant women can be recruited and retained in a randomized controlled trial of brief intervention aimed at reducing risky drinking in women receiving antenatal care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The trial will rehearse the parallel-group, non-blinded design and procedures of a subsequent definitive trial. Over 8 months, women aged 18 years and over (target number 2,742) attending their booking appointment with a community midwife (n = 31) in north-east England will be screened for alcohol consumption using the consumption questions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C). Those screening positive, without a history of substance use or alcohol dependence, with no pregnancy complication, and able to give informed consent, will be invited to participate in the trial (target number 120). Midwives will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to deliver either treatment as usual (control) or structured brief advice and referral for a 20-minute motivational interviewing session with an alcohol health worker (intervention). As well as demographic and health information, baseline measures will include two 7-day time line follow-back questionnaires and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire. Measures will be repeated in telephone follow-ups in the third trimester and at 6 months post-partum, when a questionnaire on use of National Health Service and social care resources will also be completed. Information on pregnancy outcomes and stillbirths will be accessed from central health service records before the follow-ups. Primary outcomes will be rates of eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, and retention in the study population, to inform power calculations for a definitive trial. The health-economics component will establish how cost-effectiveness will be assessed, and examine which data on health service resource use should be collected in a main trial. Participants’ views on instruments and procedures will be sought to confirm their acceptability.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will produce a full trial protocol with robust sample-size calculations to extend evidence on effectiveness of screening and brief intervention.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43218782</p

Frequency distribution for scores on the 100-item Emotion-matching task (chance performance = 33).

<p>Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of individual scores based on task reliability.</p

Scatterplot of scores on the CFMT and (a) 100-item emotion-matching task, and (b) 100-item emotion-labelling task.

<p>Scatterplot of scores on the CFMT and (a) 100-item emotion-matching task, and (b) 100-item emotion-labelling task.</p

Summary of some previous tests of facial emotion matching and labelling.

a<p>Cronbach’s alpha unless test-retest or split-half reliability noted; Accuracy unless RT noted.</p

Descriptive statistics for each task, including possible and observed range, Mean (Standard Deviation) and Cronbach’s alpha (α).

a<p>N = 79</p>b<p>N = 78</p>c<p>Obtained from Test Manual</p

Scatterplot of scores on the 100-item emotion-matching and -labelling tasks.

<p>Scatterplot of scores on the 100-item emotion-matching and -labelling tasks.</p

Correlations between the Emotion-Matching task (Match), Emotion-labelling task (Label), vocal labelling task (Vocal), and the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and a) IQ as measured with the CFIT (Cattell’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test), b) Emotion-Matching task and c) Emotion-Labelling task.

<p>Pearson correlations significant at the 0.05 level are signified with a *. Horizontal lines above each bar indicate the upper bound for the correlation based on internal reliability. Note that all correlations with the Emotion Hexagon may be further limited by the low score range (ceiling effect) on that task.</p

A structure of face and emotion processing mechanisms that is consistent with the observed pattern of correlations.

<p>(Note that the arrows are likely to be bi-directional indicating both feed-forward processing and top-down feedback but as our data does not address this they are represented as simply unidirectional).</p

Frequency distribution for scores on the 100-item Emotion-labelling task (chance performance = 8).

<p>Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of individual scores based on task reliability.</p