Is Micro-expression Ethnic Leaning?

Guoying Zhao; Huai-Qian Khor; Xingxun Jiang; Yante Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Is Micro-expression Ethnic Leaning?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that ethnicity affects micro-expression recognition and that adding an ethnicity branch to a motion classifier improves emotion prediction.

desk verdict An honest, under-powered preliminary study; the dataset is worth having, but the experiments do not isolate ethnicity as the driver. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10209 v1 pith:ANU535CT submitted 2025-07-14 cs.CV

Huai-Qian Khor , Yante Li , Xingxun Jiang , Guoying Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords ethnicitymicro-expressionrecognitioncross-culturalfacialanalysisopticalflowimageemotionuniversalityactionunitsauxiliarylearningvisiontransformer

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to test whether ethnicity affects automatic micro-expression recognition, a question usually bypassed by the field's default assumption that emotional expressions are universal. It combines CASME II and SAMM into one dataset, labels each subject as Asian or non-Asian via an automated face-analysis model plus manual correction, and compares models trained on a single ethnic group with models trained on a mixed group. The mixed group loses accuracy, which the authors read as evidence of ethnic influence. They then add an ethnicity-aware branch to a motion-based classifier and report that macro-F1 rises from 0.6210 to 0.6639 with optical flow features, and to 0.6826 when RGB texture features from a vision transformer are included. The implication the paper argues for is that emotional universality is an overgeneralization, at least for micro-expressions.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a dual-branch late-fusion architecture fed by an optical flow image. The optical flow image stacks horizontal and vertical motion displacement ($f_x$, $f_y$) with optical strain ($\epsilon$), computed between onset and apex frames, so the same motion input drives two separate backbones: one fine-tuned with emotion labels (Positive/Negative/Surprise) and one with ethnicity labels (Asian/Non-Asian). Their features are concatenated and passed through a fully connected layer so the final emotion prediction can use ethnic context without weight sharing. Ethnic labels come from a semi-automatic pipeline (FaceXFormer with heuristic human-eye correction), and evaluation is leave-one-subject-out with composite database evaluation, reported as macro-F1.

What would settle it

Annotate the same CASME II/SAMM subjects with multiple independent human raters; if the mono-ethnic versus mixed-ethnic performance gap disappears or reverses when only consensus labels are used, the observed ethnic influence is annotation noise rather than ethnicity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ethnicity is not a nuisance variable but a source of signal in micro-expression emotion classification. The paper establishes this in two steps. First, in a controlled prima facie design with 16 subjects per group and balanced emotion classes, the Asian-only and non-Asian-only setups score macro-F1 0.4546 and 0.4785 while the mixed-ethnicity setup scores 0.4375, with the mixed setup effectively losing the smaller positive and surprise classes. Second, in the main benchmark on the joint dataset, the plain motion-based ResNet-18 reaches 0.6210 average macro-F1, while the same motion backbone with an added ethnicity branch reaches 0.6639, and fusing a patch-based TinyViT trained on RGB face texture reaches 0.6826. Qualitative activation maps show different action-unit emphasis between Asian and non-Asian samples for happiness and surprise, which the paper presents as evidence against the emotion universality hypothesis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automatically assigned Asian/non-Asian labels are correct, because the mono-ethnic versus mixed-ethnic performance gap is measured on those labels and no inter-annotator agreement or ground-truth validation is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A micro-expression model trained on one ethnic group may not transfer to another, so benchmarks should report or control the ethnic mix of training and test subjects.
Adding an ethnicity-aware branch is a way to recover part of the lost accuracy on this joint dataset, raising macro-F1 from 0.6210 to 0.6639 with motion features alone.
Ethnicity is learnable from optical flow motion, not only from static RGB face texture, since the motion-only dual-branch model already improves over the baseline.
The qualitative activation maps suggest that cross-cultural micro-expression analysis should attend to which facial regions are activated, not just which emotion label is produced.
The combined annotated dataset, while small and imbalanced, is a reusable testbed for further cross-cultural micro-expression studies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Permuting the ethnicity labels during training would test whether the accuracy gain comes from ethnicity information or simply from adding a second task; if shuffled labels give the same gain, the extra capacity, not ethnicity, is responsible.
The Asian/non-Asian dichotomy pools small groups such as Indian and Others into the Asian side, so the measured gap likely underestimates the cultural variation present in the data.
The reported asymmetric AU activation for happiness and surprise implies a testable prediction: an expression classifier trained mostly on non-Asian faces should be systematically less accurate at detecting surprise and positive emotion on Asian faces.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper is genuinely preliminary and says so: it builds an ethnicity-annotated CASME2+SAMM joint dataset and tests whether adding an ethnicity branch helps micro-expression recognition. Second, the headline claim—that ethnicity clearly influences micro-expression recognition—is not supported by the evidence as it stands. The best reading is that the paper opens a question and provides a resource, not that it answers the question.

What is new: the joint dataset with heuristic ethnicity labels (Asian/non-Asian), the prima facie design, and the fusion framework. The code link is public. The authors also cite the relevant psychology literature (Chen et al., Cowen et al.) and position the work against MEGC cross-cultural spotting. Credit is due for the honest framing and for making the resource available.

The soft spots are in the experiments. The prima facie study uses 16 subjects per condition, reports no variance or significance, and the 0.04 average drop is within noise. Worse, the mixed condition is confounded with dataset identity: non-Asian subjects come from SAMM and Asian subjects mostly from CASME2, so the drop could be domain shift. That is the load-bearing comparison, so the central claim is fragile.

The benchmarking has the same structure. Table V compares a single ResNet-18 (0.6210) with a dual-backbone late-fusion model with extra parameters and an extra CCE loss (0.6639). No ablation replaces the ethnicity labels with shuffled labels, gender, or a second emotion task while keeping the architecture fixed, so the specific contribution of ethnicity is unidentified. The RGB comparison changes architecture at the same time as modality. The paper's own conclusion admits a causality study is needed, which is honest, but the abstract and conclusion still claim to have 'validated' the influence. That is too strong.

The ethnicity labels themselves are the other soft spot. FaceXFormer plus heuristic eye-correction without inter-annotator agreement or validation could inject label noise, and the Asian/non-Asian dichotomy lumps Indians with Asians and 'Others' into Asian with no data support.

Who is this for: people working on cross-cultural micro-expression recognition, or anyone who wants a cautionary example of confounded experimental design. It is not the last word on universality, and it doesn't need to be. It deserves a serious referee, because the dataset and question are worth someone's time and the authors are transparent about their limitations, but the revision bar should be high: error bars or significance tests, a fixed-architecture ablation, and a dataset confound analysis.

My recommendation: get it a competent reviewer, but prepare a clear list of required experiments.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether ethnicity influences micro-expression recognition. The authors construct an ethnically annotated joint CASME2-SAMM dataset using FaceXFormer plus heuristic correction, run a "prima facie" experiment comparing mono-ethnic and mixed-ethnic groups under a leave-one-subject-out protocol, and propose a dual-branch framework that adds an ethnicity-classification branch to a motion-based emotion classifier. They report that the mixed-ethnicity condition yields lower macro-F1 than mono-ethnic conditions, and that adding an ethnicity branch improves average macro-F1 from 0.6210 to 0.6639, with a further improvement to 0.6826 when a transformer is used for RGB texture. Qualitative activation maps are presented as evidence for distinct expression patterns across ethnic groups. The paper argues that these results challenge the universality hypothesis and motivate ethnicity-aware micro-expression recognition.

Significance. The question of whether ethnicity affects micro-expression recognition is timely and underexplored; if established convincingly, it would have implications for both affective computing and cross-cultural psychology. The paper also contributes a public code release and an ethnicity-annotated subset of two standard datasets. However, the evidence presented is currently too confounded to support the central claims. The main value of the submission at this stage is as a preliminary investigation that could become publishable after substantial re-analysis, including controlled ablations, significance testing, and label-quality validation.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-B, Table V, Equations (1)-(4)] The central benchmarking claim that "ethnic context" improves micro-expression recognition is confounded by architecture and loss-function changes. The baseline is a single ResNet-18 trained with one categorical cross-entropy loss, while the proposed method uses two ResNet-18 backbones with late fusion and an additional ethnicity loss Lethnic. The observed improvement from 0.6210 to 0.6639 could therefore be due to extra model capacity, multi-task regularization, or any auxiliary supervision, rather than the semantic content of the ethnicity labels. The same confound affects the RGB-texture comparison: the architecture changes from ResNet-18 alone to ResNet-18 plus TinyViT at the same time as the input modality changes, so the failure/success cannot be attributed to the ethnicity representation. To support the claim, the authors should add ablations that keep the architecture fixed and replace the ethnicity labels with shuffled labels, gender labels, or a second emotion task.
[Section III-B and Table IV] The prima facie study is confounded by dataset identity. Given the subject distributions in Table I, the Asian-only group is drawn predominantly from CASME2 and the non-Asian-only group from SAMM, so the mixed-ethnicity condition is also a mixed-dataset condition. The observed average macro-F1 drop (0.4546/0.4785 to 0.4375) is small, and no variance or significance testing is reported for this 16-subject-per-condition experiment. This design cannot distinguish the effect of ethnicity from domain shift between datasets. The authors should report per-dataset performance, add error bars over multiple runs or bootstraps, and ideally include a condition that mixes subjects from both datasets while keeping the ethnic composition constant.
[Section III-A] The reliability of the ethnicity labels is not established. The labels come from FaceXFormer with "heuristic-driven screening to correct some annotations" by human eyes, but no inter-annotator agreement, validation against known subject metadata, or per-sample confidence measures are reported. The mapping of Indian and "Others" subjects to the Asian group is ad hoc and may introduce label noise. If FaceXFormer's errors are correlated with the source database (e.g., it performs differently on CASME2 versus SAMM images), then both the prima facie study and the benchmarking results could reflect label noise rather than ethnicity. The authors should measure annotation accuracy, report confusion on a held-out subset, or at least conduct a sensitivity analysis with alternative label groupings.
[Section IV-C and Figures 3-4] The qualitative activation-map analysis is based on a single illustrative example per emotion class and per ethnicity group. The text draws strong conclusions, such as "Asians demonstrate activated maps on both sides of the face instead of one" and that different cultures express surprise with different facial muscle regions, but no quantification, subject-level aggregation, or statistical testing is provided. These observations are anecdotal and do not provide reliable evidence for the paper's challenge to the universality hypothesis. At minimum, the authors should show activation maps for multiple subjects and report averaged activation statistics with error bars.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract uses "stereo-ethnicity" while the body consistently uses "mixed ethnicity"; please unify the terminology.
[Tables I and II] The mapping of "Others" to Asian is described as "manually heuristic" in Table II and as part of "mapping is done for data distribution balancing" in Table I; the two descriptions are confusingly redundant and should be reconciled.
[Related Work and References] The text refers to "MEGC 2023 [6]" but the cited reference is titled "Megc2024"; please correct the year or the citation.
[Section IV-A] The prima facie experiments are said to use "ResNet-18 off-the-shelf features" with a random forest classifier, but this detail appears only in the prose and not in Table IV or its caption; please state the exact feature-extraction and classification protocol in the table caption for reproducibility.
[Section III-B] The abbreviation CDE is used before it is defined; the full phrase "composite database evaluation" appears only later in Section IV. Please define it at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ethnicity labels are empirical inputs, not fitted outputs of the emotion predictor; reported gains are confounded but not constructively circular.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any quantity from a fitted parameter or from its own definitions. Ethnicity labels are produced once by FaceXFormer with heuristic correction (Section III-A) and then used in two distinct ways: (i) to define comparison groups in the prima facie study (Table IV) and (ii) as supervision for an auxiliary branch Lethnic in Equations 1-4. Emotion classification is never computed from the ethnicity label at test time; the final emotion prediction uses merged features Femotion = FC(concat(femotion, fethnicity)) (Eq. 8), where both feature vectors are functions of the input image/optical flow, not of the ground-truth ethnicity label. The improvements in Table V (0.6210 to 0.6639) are therefore empirical findings, not quantities forced by construction. The primary limitations are experimental confounds: ethnicity is correlated with database identity (CASME2 vs SAMM), the dual-backbone model adds capacity and an extra loss, and no shuffled-label or gender auxiliary-task ablation isolates the semantic content of ethnicity. These are validity threats, not circularity under the hard rules requiring an exhibited equation-level reduction. Reference [4] is a self-citation but is used only as background context ('conventional research had emphasised the spotting and recognition tasks [4]') and is not load-bearing for the central claim. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new theoretical entities, but it relies on two key assumptions: the accuracy of the ethnic annotation and the validity of the Asian/non-Asian grouping. The manual correction of labels is an unformalized free parameter, and the emotion remapping is a domain assumption. These are the main sources of uncertainty in the central claim.

free parameters (2)

Ethnicity label correction threshold = not quantified
The heuristic screening that corrects FaceXFormer ethnicity labels is based on human eyes and is not formalized, so it acts as an unquantified tuning step.
Mapping of 'Others' to Asian = 11 samples
The paper maps the 'Others' ethnicity category to Asian via manual heuristic assessment, which adds 11 video samples to the Asian group and affects the class balance.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The ethnicity labels assigned by FaceXFormer and subsequently corrected by human inspection are accurate enough for the study.
The entire comparison between mono-ethnic and mixed-ethnic groups in Section IV-A depends on these labels being correct.
ad hoc to paper The Asian/non-Asian dichotomy is a meaningful grouping for studying ethnic influence on micro-expressions.
The paper collapses five ethnic categories into two groups based on geography, but this is a coarse simplification that may hide within-group variation.
domain assumption The remapping of fine-grained emotion labels into Positive, Negative, and Surprise preserves the relevant emotional information.
The paper excludes the 'Others' emotion category and merges seven emotions into three, which could obscure differences between emotions like fear and disgust.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is Micro-expression Ethnic Leaning?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANU535CT

@misc{pith2026250710209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is Micro-expression Ethnic Leaning?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANU535CT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10209}
}

read the original abstract

How much does ethnicity play its part in emotional expression? Emotional expression and micro-expression research probe into understanding human psychological responses to emotional stimuli, thereby revealing substantial hidden yet authentic emotions that can be useful in the event of diagnosis and interviews. While increased attention had been provided to micro-expression analysis, the studies were done under Ekman's assumption of emotion universality, where emotional expressions are identical across cultures and social contexts. Our computational study uncovers some of the influences of ethnic background in expression analysis, leading to an argument that the emotional universality hypothesis is an overgeneralization from the perspective of manual psychological analysis. In this research, we propose to investigate the level of influence of ethnicity in a simulated micro-expression scenario. We construct a cross-cultural micro-expression database and algorithmically annotate the ethnic labels to facilitate the investigation. With the ethnically annotated dataset, we perform a prima facie study to compare mono-ethnicity and stereo-ethnicity in a controlled environment, which uncovers a certain influence of ethnic bias via an experimental way. Building on this finding, we propose a framework that integrates ethnic context into the emotional feature learning process, yielding an ethnically aware framework that recognises ethnicity differences in micro-expression recognition. For improved understanding, qualitative analyses have been done to solidify the preliminary investigation into this new realm of research. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/IcedDoggie/ICMEW2025_EthnicMER

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10209 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The backbone model is fine-tuned separately with different labels. The ethnic-driven backbone is fine-tuned with ethnic labels (Asian/Non-asian), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The illustration of activation maps for positive classes. The upper row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The illustration of activation maps for surprise classes. The upper row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

A survey of automatic facial micro-expression analysis: databases, methods, and challenges,

Yee-Hui Oh, John See, Anh Cat Le Ngo, Raphael C-W Phan, and Vishnu M Baskaran, “A survey of automatic facial micro-expression analysis: databases, methods, and challenges,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 9, pp. 1128, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Lie catching and microexpressions,

Paul Ekman, “Lie catching and microexpressions,” The philosophy of deception, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 5, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Constants across cultures in the face and emotion.,

Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen, “Constants across cultures in the face and emotion.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124, 1971

work page 1971
[4]

Deep learning for micro-expression recognition: A survey,

Yante Li, Jinsheng Wei, Yang Liu, Janne Kauttonen, and Guoying Zhao, “Deep learning for micro-expression recognition: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2028–2046, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion.,

Paul Ekman, Wallace V Friesen, Maureen O’sullivan, Anthony Chan, Irene Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, Karl Heider, Rainer Krause, William Ayhan LeCompte, Tom Pitcairn, Pio E Ricci-Bitti, et al., “Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 712, 1987

work page 1987
[6]

Megc2024: Acm multimedia 2024 facial micro-expression grand challenge,

John See, Jingting Li, Adrian K Davison, Gen Bing Liong, Moi Hoon Yap, Wen-Huang Cheng, Xiaobai Li, Xiaopeng Hong, and Su-Jing Wang, “Megc2024: Acm multimedia 2024 facial micro-expression grand challenge,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 11482–11483

work page 2024
[7]

Cultural facial expressions dynamically convey emotion category and intensity information,

Chaona Chen, Daniel S Messinger, Cheng Chen, Hongmei Yan, Yaocong Duan, Robin AA Ince, Oliver GB Garrod, Philippe G Schyns, and Rachael E Jack, “Cultural facial expressions dynamically convey emotion category and intensity information,” Current biology , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 213–223, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Sixteen facial expressions occur in similar contexts worldwide,

Alan S Cowen, Dacher Keltner, Florian Schroff, Brendan Jou, Hartwig Adam, and Gautam Prasad, “Sixteen facial expressions occur in similar contexts worldwide,” Nature, vol. 589, no. 7841, pp. 251–257, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 14 references

[9]

Emotion in the wilds of nature: The coherence and contagion of fear during threatening group-based outdoors experiences.,

Craig L Anderson, Maria Monroy, and Dacher Keltner, “Emotion in the wilds of nature: The coherence and contagion of fear during threatening group-based outdoors experiences.,” Emotion, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 355, 2018

2018
[10]

The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays,

Jessica L Tracy and David Matsumoto, “The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 105, no. 33, pp. 11655–11660, 2008

2008
[11]

Humor detection system for muse 2023: contextual modeling, pesudo labelling, and post-smoothing,

Mingyu Xu, Shun Chen, Zheng Lian, and Bin Liu, “Humor detection system for muse 2023: contextual modeling, pesudo labelling, and post-smoothing,” in Proceedings of the 4th on Multimodal Sentiment Analysis Challenge and Workshop: Mimicked Emotions, Humour and Personalisation, 2...

2023
[12]

Facexformer: A unified transformer for facial analysis,

Kartik Narayan, Vibashan VS, Rama Chellappa, and Vishal M Patel, “Facexformer: A unified transformer for facial analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12960, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Towards macro-and micro-expression spotting in video using strain patterns,

Matthew Shreve, Sridhar Godavarthy, Vasant Manohar, Dmitry Goldgof, and Sudeep Sarkar, “Towards macro-and micro-expression spotting in video using strain patterns,” in 2009 Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6

2009
[14]

Secrets of optical flow estimation and their principles,

Deqing Sun, Stefan Roth, and Michael J Black, “Secrets of optical flow estimation and their principles,” in 2010 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . IEEE, 2010, pp. 2432–2439

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A survey of automatic facial micro-expression analysis: databases, methods, and challenges,

Yee-Hui Oh, John See, Anh Cat Le Ngo, Raphael C-W Phan, and Vishnu M Baskaran, “A survey of automatic facial micro-expression analysis: databases, methods, and challenges,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 9, pp. 1128, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Lie catching and microexpressions,

Paul Ekman, “Lie catching and microexpressions,” The philosophy of deception, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 5, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Constants across cultures in the face and emotion.,

Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen, “Constants across cultures in the face and emotion.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124, 1971

work page 1971

[4] [4]

Deep learning for micro-expression recognition: A survey,

Yante Li, Jinsheng Wei, Yang Liu, Janne Kauttonen, and Guoying Zhao, “Deep learning for micro-expression recognition: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2028–2046, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion.,

Paul Ekman, Wallace V Friesen, Maureen O’sullivan, Anthony Chan, Irene Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, Karl Heider, Rainer Krause, William Ayhan LeCompte, Tom Pitcairn, Pio E Ricci-Bitti, et al., “Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 712, 1987

work page 1987

[6] [6]

Megc2024: Acm multimedia 2024 facial micro-expression grand challenge,

John See, Jingting Li, Adrian K Davison, Gen Bing Liong, Moi Hoon Yap, Wen-Huang Cheng, Xiaobai Li, Xiaopeng Hong, and Su-Jing Wang, “Megc2024: Acm multimedia 2024 facial micro-expression grand challenge,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 11482–11483

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Cultural facial expressions dynamically convey emotion category and intensity information,

Chaona Chen, Daniel S Messinger, Cheng Chen, Hongmei Yan, Yaocong Duan, Robin AA Ince, Oliver GB Garrod, Philippe G Schyns, and Rachael E Jack, “Cultural facial expressions dynamically convey emotion category and intensity information,” Current biology , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 213–223, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Sixteen facial expressions occur in similar contexts worldwide,

Alan S Cowen, Dacher Keltner, Florian Schroff, Brendan Jou, Hartwig Adam, and Gautam Prasad, “Sixteen facial expressions occur in similar contexts worldwide,” Nature, vol. 589, no. 7841, pp. 251–257, 2021

work page 2021