Top

Gepubliceerd in:

13-03-2019 | Original Article

Deaf signers outperform hearing non-signers in recognizing happy facial expressions

Auteurs: Christian Dobel, Bettina Nestler-Collatz, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius, Stefan R. Schweinberger, Romi Zäske

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2020

Abstract

The use of signs as a major means for communication affects other functions such as spatial processing. Intriguingly, this is true even for functions which are less obviously linked to language processing. Speakers using signs outperform non-signers in face recognition tasks, potentially as a result of a lifelong focus on the mouth region for speechreading. On this background, we hypothesized that the processing of emotional faces is altered in persons using mostly signs for communication (henceforth named deaf signers). While for the recognition of happiness the mouth region is more crucial, the eye region matters more for recognizing anger. Using morphed faces, we created facial composites in which either the upper or lower half of an emotional face was kept neutral while the other half varied in intensity of the expressed emotion, being either happy or angry. As expected, deaf signers were more accurate at recognizing happy faces than non-signers. The reverse effect was found for angry faces. These differences between groups were most pronounced for facial expressions of low intensities. We conclude that the lifelong focus on the mouth region in deaf signers leads to more sensitive processing of happy faces, especially when expressions are relatively subtle.

vorige artikel Are age-related deficits in route learning related to control of visual attention?

volgende artikel The effects of early schema acquisition on mathematical problem solving

There was also a smaller but significant quadratic trend (F = 115.144; p < 0.001) and cubic trend (F = 4.398; p = 0.043).

There was also a smaller but significant quadratic trend (F = 13.506; p = 0.001).

We performed two additional ANOVAs on accuracies and latencies, comparing two sub-groups of deaf signers, i.e. those using DGS and SSS (N = 14) with those using SSS (N = 6) only. For accuracies, the only significant effect involving the factor GROUP was an interaction of STIMULUS TYPE × INTENSITY × GROUP (F(6, 108) = 2.579, p = 0.026, ηp2 = 0.125). Running the ANOVA for each group separately, revealed a significant interaction of STIMULUS TYPE × INTENSITY in both groups (F(6, 78) = 3.617, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.218 for the signers using DGS and SSS; F(6, 30) = 10.154, p < 0.001, ηp2 = .670 for the signers using SSS only. With increasing intensity both groups displayed the effect of TYPE with the highest accuracy for O stimuli followed by MEmo and Eemo. However, in the group using DGS and SSS the effect of STIMULUS TYPE appeared already with the lowest morphing intensity (F(2,26) = 9.560, p = 0.001, η_p² = 0.424), while this was not the case in participants using SSS only (F(2,10) = 1.258, p = 0.326, η_p² = 0.201)..For latencies, there were no effects involving GROUP.

Andersson, U., Lyxell, B., Ronnberg, J., & Spens, K. E. (2001). Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,6(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.2.103.CrossRefPubMed

Beaudry, O., Roy-Charland, A., Perron, M., Cormier, I., & Tapp, R. (2014). Featural processing in recognition of emotional facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion,28(3), 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.833500.CrossRefPubMed

Bellugi, U., O’Grady, L., Lillo-Martin, D., Hynes, M. G., van Hoek, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Enhancement of spatial cognition in deaf children. In V. Volterra & C. J. Erting (Eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 278–298). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Benton, A. L. (1983). Facial recognition: Stimulus and multiple choice pictures; Contributions to neuropsychological assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bernstein, L. E., Tucker, P. E., & Demorest, M. E. (2000). Speech perception without hearing. Perception and Psychophysics,62(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03205546.CrossRefPubMed

Bettger, J. (1992). The effects of experience on spatial cognition: Deafness and knowledge of ASL. Unpublished dissertation. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Bettger, J. G., Emmorey, K., McCullough, S. H., & Bellugi, U. (1997). Enhanced facial diserimination: Effects of experience with American sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,2(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014328.CrossRefPubMed

Calvo, M. G., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). Detection of emotional faces: salient physical features guide effective visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,137(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012771.CrossRef

Campbell, R., Brooks, B., Haan, E. D., & Roberts, T. (1996). Dissociating face processing skills: Decisions about lip read speech, expression, and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A,49(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249896392649.CrossRef

Chen, Q., He, G., Chen, K., Jin, Z., & Mo, L. (2010). Altered spatial distribution of visual attention in near and far space after early deafness. Neuropsychologia,48(9), 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.016.CrossRefPubMed

Chen, Q., Zhang, M., & Zhou, X. (2006). Effects of spatial distribution of attention during inhibition of return (IOR) on flanker interference in hearing and congenitally deaf people. Brain Research,1109(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.043.CrossRefPubMed

de Heering, A., Aljuhanay, A., Rossion, B., & Pascalis, O. (2012). Early deafness increases the face inversion effect but does not modulate the composite face effect. Frontiers in Psychology,3, 124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dobel, C., Enriquez-Geppert, S., Hummert, M., Zwitserlood, P., & Bolte, J. (2011). Conceptual representation of actions in sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,16(3), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq070.CrossRefPubMed

Dyck, M. J., & Denver, E. (2003). Can the emotion recognition ability of deaf children be enhanced? A pilot study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,8(3), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng019.CrossRefPubMed

Dye, M. W., Baril, D. E., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the Attentional Network Test. Neuropsychologia,45(8), 1801–1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.019.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,17(2), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030377.CrossRefPubMed

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1986). A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion. Motivation and Emotion,10(2), 159–168.CrossRef

Emmorey, K. (2001). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. London: Psychology Press.CrossRef

Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. M., & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers. Cognition,46(2), 139–181.CrossRef

Emmorey, K., Thompson, R., & Colvin, R. (2008). Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,14(2), 237–243.CrossRef

Emmorey, K., & Tversky, B. (2002). Spatial perspective choice in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics,5(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.5.1.03emm.CrossRef

Goldstein, N. E., & Feldman, R. S. (1996). Knowledge of American sign language and the ability of hearing individuals to decode facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,20(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02253072.CrossRef

Goldstein, N. E., Sexton, J., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Encoding of facial expressions of emotion and knowledge of American sign language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,30(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02305.x.CrossRef

Gosselin, P., & Kirouac, G. (1995). Le décodage de prototypes émotionnels faciaux. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale,49(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.49.3.313.CrossRefPubMed

Hauthal, N., Neumann, M. F., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2012). Attentional spread in deaf and hearing participants: face and object distractor processing under perceptual load. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics,74(6), 1312–1320. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0320-1.CrossRefPubMed

He, H., Xu, B., & Tanaka, J. (2016). Investigating the face inversion effect in a deaf population using the Dimensions Tasks. Visual Cognition,24(3), 201–211.CrossRef

Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics,1(1), 69–82.CrossRef

Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychological Bulletin,115(2), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.288.CrossRefPubMed

Letourneau, S. M., & Mitchell, T. V. (2011). Gaze patterns during identity and emotion judgments in hearing adults and deaf users of American Sign Language. Perception,40(5), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Letourneau, S. M., & Mitchell, T. V. (2013). Visual field bias in hearing and deaf adults during judgments of facial expression and identity. Frontiers in Psychology,4, 319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00319.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Lore, W. H., & Song, S. (1991). Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing and nonhearing individuals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29(5), 437–440.CrossRef

Ludlow, A., Heaton, P., Rosset, D., Hills, P., & Deruelle, C. (2010). Emotion recognition in children with profound and severe deafness: Do they have a deficit in perceptual processing? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,32(9), 923–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803391003596447.CrossRefPubMed

Marassa, L. K., & Lansing, C. R. (1995). Visual word recognition in two facial motion conditions: Full-face versus lips-plus-mandible. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,38(6), 1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3806.1387.CrossRef

Mastrantuono, E., Saldana, D., & Rodriguez-Ortiz, I. R. (2017). An eye tracking study on the perception and comprehension of unimodal and bimodal linguistic inputs by deaf adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 1044. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6(6), 255–260.CrossRef

McCullough, S., & Emmorey, K. (1997). Face processing by deaf ASL signers: Evidence for expertise in distinguishing local features. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,2(4), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014327.CrossRefPubMed

McCullough, S., & Emmorey, K. (2009). Categorical perception of affective and linguistic facial expressions. Cognition,110(2), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.007.CrossRefPubMed

Mitchell, T. V. (2017). Category selectivity of the N170 and the role of expertise in deaf signers. Hearing Research,343, 150–161.CrossRef

Mitchell, T. V., Letourneau, S. M., & Maslin, M. C. (2013). Behavioral and neural evidence of increased attention to the bottom half of the face in deaf signers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience,31(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-120233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Neville, H. J., & Lawson, D. (1987a). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. I. Normal hearing adults. Brain Research,405(2), 253–267.CrossRef

Neville, H. J., & Lawson, D. (1987b). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research,405(2), 268–283.CrossRef

Parasnis, I., Samar, V. J., Bettger, J. G., & Sathe, K. (1996). Does deafness lead to enhancement of visual spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf nonsigners. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,1(2), 145–152.CrossRef

Proksch, J., & Bavelier, D. (2002). Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,14(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290260138591.CrossRefPubMed

Rosenblum, L. D. (2008). Speech perception as a multimodal phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science,17(6), 405–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00615.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schiff, W. (1973). Social-event perception and stimulus pooling in deaf and hearing observers. The American Journal of Psychology,86(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421848.CrossRefPubMed

Schweinberger, S. R., & Soukup, G. R. (1998). Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion, and facial speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,24(6), 1748–1765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1748.CrossRefPubMed

Sidera, F., Amado, A., & Martinez, L. (2017). Influences on Facial Emotion Recognition in Deaf Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,22(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw072.CrossRefPubMed

Sladen, D. P., Tharpe, A. M., Ashmead, D. H., Grantham, D. W., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,48(6), 1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/106).CrossRef

Stoll, C., Palluel-Germain, R., Caldara, R., Lao, J., Dye, M. W., Aptel, F., & Pascalis, O. (2017). Face recognition is shaped by the use of sign language. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,23(1), 62–70.CrossRef

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion,8(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.81.CrossRefPubMed

Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,43(2), 161–204.CrossRef

Vassallo, S., Cooper, S. L., & Douglas, J. M. (2009). Visual scanning in the recognition of facial affect: is there an observer sex difference? Journal of Vision,9(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.3.11.CrossRefPubMed

Watanabe, K., Matsuda, T., Nishioka, T., & Namatame, M. (2011). Eye gaze during observation of static faces in deaf people. PLoS One,6(2), e16919.CrossRef

Weisel, A. (1985). Deafness and perception of nonverbal expression of emotion. Perceptual and Motor Skills,61(2), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1985.61.2.515.CrossRefPubMed

Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality. In J. B. Carroll, S. C. Levinson, P. Lee (Eds.), Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Young, A., Perrett, D., Calder, A., Sprengelmeyer, R., & Ekman, P. (2002). Facial expressions of emotion: Stimuli and tests (FEEST). Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.

Titel: Deaf signers outperform hearing non-signers in recognizing happy facial expressions
Auteurs: Christian Dobel
Bettina Nestler-Collatz
Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
Stefan R. Schweinberger
Romi Zäske
Publicatiedatum: 13-03-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01160-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2020

Reaching trajectories unravel modality-dependent temporal dynamics of the automatic process in the Simon task: a model-based approach

Original Article

Test of a dynamic neural field model: spatial working memory is biased away from distractors

Original Article

The effects of early schema acquisition on mathematical problem solving

Original Article

Motor imagery entails task-set inhibition

Original Article

Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models

Original Article

Task structure boundaries affect response preparation

Original Article