Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Indeterminacy in Affective Computing: Considering Meaning and Context in Data Collection Practices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every emotion-AI label is a human interpretation with four inherent indeterminacies.

desk verdict A genuinely useful vocabulary for indeterminacy in affective labels, but it is a scaffold for future operational work rather than a finished method. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09294 v1 pith:E232BAAV submitted 2025-02-13 cs.AI

Bernd Dudzik , Tiffany Matej Hrkalovic , Chenxu Hao , Chirag Raman , Masha Tsfasman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords affectivecomputingautomaticaffectpredictiondatacollectionindeterminacysubjectivityambiguityuncertaintyvagueness
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

This position paper aims to establish that automatic affect prediction (AAP) training labels are not objective ground truth but products of human Affective Interpretation Processes, and that the resulting affective meaning carries four inherent Qualities of Indeterminacy: subjectivity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and vagueness. The authors argue that because these qualities are shaped by context, current data collection practices that ignore them produce predictions that are unreliable or structurally misaligned with real affective phenomena. They propose that data collection for AAP should systematically identify and capture the relevant QIs and document the contextual variables affecting the interpretation process. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to a concrete change in how emotion-AI datasets are built and evaluated.

What carries the argument

The central object is a conceptual model of Affective Interpretation Processes (AIPs) with five components—Interpreter, Target Stimulus, Information Goal, Processing, and Interpretation—plus a taxonomy of four Qualities of Indeterminacy (Subjectivity, Uncertainty, Ambiguity, Vagueness) and four Context Aspects (Interpreter, Target Stimulus, Processing, Conceptual). The model also distinguishes Phenomenon Configurations, the real-world conditions under which an interpretation naturally occurs, from Measurement Configurations, the conditions imposed by a data collection protocol. The machinery shows how each context aspect can shape particular QIs and why measurement setups can systematically diverge from the natural phenomenon, making context documentation necessary.

What would settle it

Run a controlled annotation study where one context aspect (such as the timing of the questionnaire) is varied while all others are fixed, and measure the four QIs via self-reported confidence, number of co-selected labels, label granularity, and inter-annotator agreement. If labels change but none of the QI measures change, the framework's claim that context shapes QIs is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every label in an Automatic Affect Prediction training set is the output of a human Affective Interpretation Process, so the meaning captured by labels is inherently indeterminate in at least four ways: subjectivity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and vagueness. Because these qualities are shaped by context, the paper argues that datasets for AAP must be collected by identifying and capturing the relevant QIs and systematically documenting the contextual variables that influence them. If correct, models trained without this information are at best unreliable and at worst structurally misaligned with the affective phenomena they claim to predict.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that subjectivity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and vagueness are the complete, non-overlapping set of ways affective meaning can be indeterminate, and that the four named context aspects are the correct decomposition of context.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, aggregating annotator labels by majority vote or averaging throws away the subjectivity signal that the paper says is central to affective meaning.
  • Datasets that document the four QIs and context aspects would allow downstream models to be trained and evaluated against the full distribution of interpretations, not just a single consensus label.
  • AAP models deployed in settings whose context differs from the dataset's measurement configuration would be expected to fail in ways that are predictable from the documented context divergence.
  • Researchers would need to move from asking 'what is the correct label?' to asking 'under what interpretation process and context was this label produced?'

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to measure annotation entropy, self-reported confidence, and label granularity in existing corpora; if these track the four QIs, the taxonomy gains operational content.
  • The paper's context taxonomy could be extended to include temporal context such as an annotator's recent experiences, which the paper touches on for timing but not for interpreter state over time.
  • If QIs are genuinely inherent, then 'ground truth' in emotion AI is better modeled as a distribution over interpretations, changing evaluation metrics from accuracy to distributional divergence or calibration.
  • The argument implies that commercial emotion-recognition systems, which typically train on single-label datasets, carry an undocumented mismatch between measurement and phenomenon configurations.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that all Automatic Affect Prediction (AAP) training data are derived from human Affective Interpretation Processes (AIPs), and that the resulting Affective Meaning carries inherent Qualities of Indeterminacy (QIs): Subjectivity, Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Vagueness. The authors propose a conceptual model consisting of AIP components (Interpreter, Target Stimulus, Information Goal, Processing, Interpretation) and four Context Aspects (Interpreter, Target Stimulus, Processing, Conceptual). They further distinguish Phenomenon Configurations from Measurement Configurations and argue that data collection practices should systematically identify and capture QIs while documenting contextual variables. Three illustrative examples are given: participant selection, questionnaire content, and timing of questionnaire provision.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, the paper provides a useful agenda-setting contribution for affective computing, giving researchers a shared vocabulary for indeterminacy and context. The distinction between Phenomenon and Measurement Configurations is a concrete conceptual tool that could improve dataset design discussions, and the three examples tie the abstract framework to real data-collection decisions. The paper is also honest in positioning itself as a conceptual starting point rather than a solved methodology. Its value, however, depends on whether the proposed QI taxonomy and Context Aspects can be turned into practical, testable measurement and documentation procedures; the current manuscript does not yet provide those procedures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-B and Section IV] The four QIs are defined only phenomenologically, with no operational criteria for recognizing, measuring, or distinguishing them in annotation outputs. For example, Subjectivity is 'meaning depends on who is interpreting,' while Ambiguity is 'multiple, simultaneously existing concepts,' but the text gives no guidance on how a dataset designer would decide whether a given label or annotation reflects one rather than the other. This is load-bearing because Section IV presents 'identify a set of QIs relevant for AAP and develop methods for capturing them' as a crucial step; without at least preliminary operational definitions, two researchers could apply the framework to the same annotation and disagree about which QIs are present, with no way to resolve the disagreement. The authors should either add a minimal operationalization (e.g., annotation guidelines, rating scales, or decision rules) or explicitly frame this as a required next step with a proposed validation method.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim that failing to consider QIs 'leads to results incapable of meaningful and reliable predictions' is stronger than the evidence provided in the manuscript. The cited references [17], [18], and [20] demonstrate context sensitivity and reliability concerns for particular affect-prediction settings, but they do not directly test the specific QI taxonomy or the proposed documentation practice. Since this is a position paper, new experiments are not required, but the causal claim should be softened to 'may lead to' or supported by a structured synthesis of existing evidence showing that QI-aware data collection changes prediction outcomes. As written, the motivating claim goes beyond what the cited literature establishes.
  3. [Section III-B] The three examples (Participant Selection, Questionnaire Content, Timing) are presented as illustrative mappings between measurement choices and QIs, but the mappings are asserted rather than derived from the framework. For instance, 'Questionnaire Content → Uncertainty, Ambiguity, Vagueness' is plausible, but the text does not explain how one would determine which QI changes under which questionnaire manipulation, nor how the mapping could be tested. Presenting these as explicit, falsifiable hypotheses (e.g., 'closed-ended questionnaires increase Ambiguity relative to open-ended ones') would strengthen the framework and give the two crucial steps operational substance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Index Terms] The index terms contain the typo 'Date Collection'; this should read 'Data Collection'.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] In the phrase 'Affective Interpretation Processes (AIPs resulting in a form,' the closing parenthesis after 'AIPs' is missing; it should appear after 'Processes'.
  3. [Section II-A] The abbreviation 'TS' is introduced for Target Stimulus but is not used after the definition; the text should either use it consistently or drop the abbreviation.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced but not described in the body text; the figure's components and arrows should be explained so that readers can see how the model is meant to be read.
  5. [References] References [17] and [34] are arXiv preprints; the authors should check whether peer-reviewed versions are available and cite them if so.
  6. [Ethical Impact Statement] The Ethical Impact Statement states that there are no ethical issues, but the paper's recommendations concern annotation labor and data documentation; a brief discussion of responsible documentation and annotation practices would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conceptual taxonomy and context framework are stipulated, not derived from the data they are meant to organize.

full rationale

This is a conceptual position paper, not an empirical derivation. It stipulates the Affective Interpretation Process model, defines the four Qualities of Indeterminacy via descriptive prose, and defines context as any element that influences affective meaning. These are explicit definitions and framing devices, not predictions fitted to data, and no equation or fitted parameter is used anywhere in the paper. The recommendation to systematically document contextual variables follows from the stipulated model rather than from a circular reduction: the paper does not claim to empirically validate its taxonomy, and its central argument is supported by cited external affective science literature. The self-citations (e.g., [11], [16], [17], [34]) provide supporting examples of context sensitivity but are not the sole justification for the core claim, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The absence of operational criteria for identifying QIs is a practical and falsifiability weakness, but it is not a circularity. Therefore no load-bearing circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper is a conceptual framework with no fitted parameters. Its claims rest on domain assumptions about the nature of affective meaning and the influence of context, which are supported by selected citations but not by new evidence. The central constructs are analytic inventions rather than empirically validated entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All AAP training data are derived from human Affective Interpretation Processes (AIPs).
    This is the fundamental premise stated in the abstract and Section I; it is treated as definitional rather than empirically established.
  • domain assumption Affective Meaning inherently possesses the four QIs: Subjectivity, Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Vagueness.
    Stated in Section II-B as a fundamental property, supported by selected references but not systematically justified.
  • domain assumption Context aspects influence the emergence and shape of particular QIs.
    Assumed in Section II-C and used in Section III; relies on cited empirical findings but is not itself tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The four QIs and four context aspects are the relevant categories for improving AAP data collection.
    Introduced as the paper's framework; no argument establishes completeness or non-redundancy of the categories.
invented entities (3)
  • Qualities of Indeterminacy (QIs)
    purpose: To capture the inherent variability, complexity, and interpretative diversity of affective meaning in labels.
    Defined analytically in Section II-B; no measurement procedure or falsifiable handle is provided.
  • Context Aspects (Interpreter, Target Stimulus, Processing, Conceptual)
    purpose: To provide a structure for contextual influences on QIs during interpretation.
    Defined in Section II-C as a conceptual decomposition; no empirical validation identifies these as the correct dimensions.
  • Phenomenon Configuration vs. Measurement Configuration
    purpose: To distinguish the natural context of an interpretation from the context imposed by a data collection protocol.
    Introduced in Section III-A as analytic categories for designing data collection; no operational criteria for identifying either configuration in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indeterminacy in Affective Computing: Considering Meaning and Context in Data Collection Practices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E232BAAV

@misc{pith2026250209294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indeterminacy in Affective Computing: Considering Meaning and Context in Data Collection Practices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E232BAAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09294}
}
read the original abstract

Automatic Affect Prediction (AAP) uses computational analysis of input data such as text, speech, images, and physiological signals to predict various affective phenomena (e.g., emotions or moods). These models are typically constructed using supervised machine-learning algorithms, which rely heavily on labeled training datasets. In this position paper, we posit that all AAP training data are derived from human Affective Interpretation Processes, resulting in a form of Affective Meaning. Research on human affect indicates a form of complexity that is fundamental to such meaning: it can possess what we refer to here broadly as Qualities of Indeterminacy (QIs) - encompassing Subjectivity (meaning depends on who is interpreting), Uncertainty (lack of confidence regarding meanings' correctness), Ambiguity (meaning contains mutually exclusive concepts) and Vagueness (meaning is situated at different levels in a nested hierarchy). Failing to appropriately consider QIs leads to results incapable of meaningful and reliable predictions. Based on this premise, we argue that a crucial step in adequately addressing indeterminacy in AAP is the development of data collection practices for modeling corpora that involve the systematic consideration of 1) a relevant set of QIs and 2) context for the associated interpretation processes. To this end, we are 1) outlining a conceptual model of AIPs and the QIs associated with the meaning these produce and a conceptual structure of relevant context, supporting understanding of its role. Finally, we use our framework for 2) discussing examples of context-sensitivity-related challenges for addressing QIs in data collection setups. We believe our efforts can stimulate a structured discussion of both the role of aspects of indeterminacy and context in research on AAP, informing the development of better practices for data collection and analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    A Blast From the Past: Personalizing Predictions of Video-Induced Emotions using Personal Memories as Context,

    B. Dudzik, J. Broekens, M. Neerincx, and H. Hung, “A Blast From the Past: Personalizing Predictions of Video-Induced Emotions using Personal Memories as Context,” arXiv, Aug. 2020, arXiv: 2008.12096

    arXiv 2020

  2. [18]

    The unbearable (technical) unreliability of automated facial emotion recognition,

    F. Cabitza, A. Campagner, and M. Mattioli, “The unbearable (technical) unreliability of automated facial emotion recognition,” Big Data & Society, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 205395172211295, Jul. 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [20]

    Can an affect-sensitive system afford to be context independent?

    A. Marpaung and A. Gonzalez, “Can an affect-sensitive system afford to be context independent?” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 10257 LNAI. Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 454–467, iSSN: 16113349

    work page 2017

  4. [1]

    A Review and Meta-Analysis of Multimodal Affect Detection Systems,

    S. K. D’mello and J. Kory, “A Review and Meta-Analysis of Multimodal Affect Detection Systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1–36, feb 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [2]

    Extracting moods from pictures and sounds: towards truly personalized TV,

    A. Hanjalic, “Extracting moods from pictures and sounds: towards truly personalized TV,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 90–100, Mar. 2006, iSBN: 1053-5888

    work page 2006

  6. [3]

    Emotionally Aware TV,

    M. Soleymani and M. Pantic, “Emotionally Aware TV,” in Proceed- ings of TVUX-2013: Workshop on Exploring and Enhancing the User Experience for TV at ACM CHI 2013 , 2013, issue: April 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [4]

    Artificial intelligence in behavioral and mental health care,

    D. D. Luxton, “Artificial intelligence in behavioral and mental health care,” 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [5]

    Customer Satisfac- tion Recognition Based on Facial Expression and Machine Learning Techniques,

    M. S. Bouzakraoui, A. Sadiq, and A. Y . Alaoui, “Customer Satisfac- tion Recognition Based on Facial Expression and Machine Learning Techniques,”Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 594–599, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    A systematic review on affective computing: Emotion models, databases, and recent advances,

    Y . Wang, W. Song, W. Tao, A. Liotta, D. Yang, X. Li, S. Gao, Y . Sun, W. Ge, W. Zhang et al., “A systematic review on affective computing: Emotion models, databases, and recent advances,” Information Fusion, vol. 83, pp. 19–52, 2022

    2022

  2. [7]

    Introducing the geneva multimodal emotion portrayal (gemep) corpus,

    T. B ¨anziger and K. R. Scherer, “Introducing the geneva multimodal emotion portrayal (gemep) corpus,” Blueprint for affective computing: A sourcebook, vol. 2010, pp. 271–94, 2010

    2010

  3. [8]

    Corpus develop- ment for affective video indexing,

    M. Soleymani, M. Larson, T. Pun, and A. Hanjalic, “Corpus develop- ment for affective video indexing,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1075–1089, 2014

    2014

  4. [9]

    Annotating emotions in meetings

    D. Reidsma, D. Heylen, and R. Ordelman, “Annotating emotions in meetings.” in LREC, 2006, pp. 1117–1122

    2006

  5. [10]

    Predicting emotions in facial expressions from the annotations in naturally occurring first encounters,

    C. Navarretta, “Predicting emotions in facial expressions from the annotations in naturally occurring first encounters,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 71, pp. 34–40, 2014

    2014

  6. [11]

    Collecting me- mentos: A multimodal dataset for context-sensitive modeling of affect and memory processing in responses to videos,

    B. Dudzik, H. Hung, M. Neerincx, and J. Broekens, “Collecting me- mentos: A multimodal dataset for context-sensitive modeling of affect and memory processing in responses to videos,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1249–1266, 2021

    2021

  7. [12]

    Theories of emotion causation: A review,

    A. Moors, “Theories of emotion causation: A review,” Cognition and Emotion, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 625–662, 2009

    2009

  8. [13]

    The inherently con- textualized nature of facial emotion perception,

    H. Aviezer, N. Ensenberg, and R. R. Hassin, “The inherently con- textualized nature of facial emotion perception,” Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 17, pp. 47–54, Oct. 2017, publisher: Elsevier B.V

    2017

  9. [14]

    Meld: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,

    S. Poria, D. Hazarika, N. Majumder, G. Naik, E. Cambria, and R. Mihal- cea, “Meld: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02508 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild,

    A. Mollahosseini, B. Hasani, and M. H. Mahoor, “Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 18–31, 2017

    2017

  11. [16]

    Context in human emotion perception for automatic affect detection: A survey of audiovisual databases,

    B. Dudzik, M.-P. Jansen, F. Burger, F. Kaptein, J. Broekens, D. K. Heylen, H. Hung, M. A. Neerincx, and K. P. Truong, “Context in human emotion perception for automatic affect detection: A survey of audiovisual databases,” in 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Comp...

    2019

  12. [19]

    The relationship between uncertainty and affect,

    E. C. Anderson, R. N. Carleton, M. Diefenbach, and P. K. J. Han, “The relationship between uncertainty and affect,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 10, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    DynAMoS: The Dynamic Affective Movie Clip Database for Subjectivity Analysis,

    J. M. Girard, Y . Tie, and E. Liebenthal, “DynAMoS: The Dynamic Affective Movie Clip Database for Subjectivity Analysis,” in 2023 11th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). Cambridge, MA, USA: IEEE, Sep. 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  14. [22]

    Context is Everything (in Emotion Research),

    K. H. Greenaway, E. K. Kalokerinos, and L. A. Williams, “Context is Everything (in Emotion Research),” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 12, no. 6, p. e12393, Jun. 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients,

    A. S. Cowen and D. Keltner, “Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients,”Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 114, no. 38, pp. E7900–E7909, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Emotional expressivity in men and women: Stereotypes and self-perceptions,

    U. Hess, S. Sen ´ecal, G. Kirouac, P. Herrera, P. Philippot, and R. E. Kleck, “Emotional expressivity in men and women: Stereotypes and self-perceptions,” Cognition & Emotion , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 609–642, Sep. 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Are there basic emotions?

    P. Ekman, “Are there basic emotions?” Psychological Review, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 550–553, 1992, place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    1992

  18. [26]

    Knowing how much you don’t know: a neural organization of uncertainty estimates,

    D. R. Bach and R. J. Dolan, “Knowing how much you don’t know: a neural organization of uncertainty estimates,” Nature reviews neuro- science, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 572–586, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Resolving uncertainty in a social world,

    O. FeldmanHall and A. Shenhav, “Resolving uncertainty in a social world,” Nature human behaviour , vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 426–435, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    The ambiguous world of emotion representation,

    V . Sethu, E. M. Provost, J. Epps, C. Busso, N. Cummins, and S. Narayanan, “The ambiguous world of emotion representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00360, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Metacognition in human decision- making: confidence and error monitoring,

    N. Yeung and C. Summerfield, “Metacognition in human decision- making: confidence and error monitoring,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , vol. 367, no. 1594, pp. 1310–1321, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements,

    L. F. Barrett, R. Adolphs, S. Marsella, A. M. Martinez, and S. D. Pollak, “Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–68, 2019, pMID: 31313636

    2019

  23. [31]

    A neurocognitive model of perceptual decision-making on emotional signals,

    M. Dricu and S. Fr ¨uhholz, “A neurocognitive model of perceptual decision-making on emotional signals,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1532–1556, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    A brief, but nuanced, review of emotional granularity and emotion differentiation research,

    K. E. Smidt and M. K. Suvak, “A brief, but nuanced, review of emotional granularity and emotion differentiation research,” Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 48–51, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Infusing context into emotion perception impacts emotion decoding accuracy,

    U. Hess and K. Kafetsios, “Infusing context into emotion perception impacts emotion decoding accuracy,” Experimental psychology, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    A valid self-report is never late, nor is it early: On considering the

    B. Dudzik and J. Broekens, “A valid self-report is never late, nor is it early: On considering the” right” temporal distance for assessing emotional experience,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02821 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions,

    G. Dreisbach, “Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 489–497, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Language as context for the perception of emotion,

    L. F. Barrett, K. A. Lindquist, and M. Gendron, “Language as context for the perception of emotion,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 327–332, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Emotion perception across cultures: the role of cognitive mechanisms,

    J. B. Engelmann and M. Pogosyan, “Emotion perception across cultures: the role of cognitive mechanisms,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 4, p. 118, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Language access differentially alters functional connectivity during emotion per- ception across cultures,

    J. Leshin, M. J. Carter, C. M. Doyle, and K. A. Lindquist, “Language access differentially alters functional connectivity during emotion per- ception across cultures,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 14, p. 1084059, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Effects of aging on emotion recognition from dynamic multimodal expressions and vocalizations,

    D. S. Cortes, C. Tornberg, T. B ¨anziger, H. A. Elfenbein, H. Fischer, and P. Laukka, “Effects of aging on emotion recognition from dynamic multimodal expressions and vocalizations,” Scientific reports , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2647, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Personality and the accurate perception of facial emotion expressions: What is accuracy and how does it matter?

    K. Kafetsios and U. Hess, “Personality and the accurate perception of facial emotion expressions: What is accuracy and how does it matter?” Emotion, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 100, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Toward a perspectivist turn in ground truthing for predictive computing,

    F. Cabitza, A. Campagner, and V . Basile, “Toward a perspectivist turn in ground truthing for predictive computing,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 6860–6868, Jun. 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.