Scholarlink

<p>Recognizing emotional intent from prosody (vocal emotion recognition [ER]) is found to be more challenging than the same ability with facial expressions (facial ER). However, disparities between these nonverbal modalities may be because most research compares ER accuracy for static faces and dynamic prosody. Interpreting dynamic expressions that unfold over time may be more difficult and require more advanced cognitive abilities, like working memory. We explored (a) differences in ER accuracy across tasks varying in modality (facial, vocal) <i>and</i> dynamism (static, dynamic), and (b) whether trait-level cognitive abilities (working memory, attentional control) differentially predicted ER accuracy across tasks. 300 adults (52.3% women) completed ER tasks (static voice [vocal bursts], static face, dynamic voice [prosody], dynamic face), working memory tasks (backwards digit span, N-back), and an attentional control task (antisaccade) online. A linear mixed-effects model of the effect of modality, dynamism, working memory, and attentional control on accuracy revealed that dynamic facial expressions were recognized more accurately than vocal prosody, but static faces and vocal bursts were recognized with similar accuracy. Better performance on the N-back task was linked to higher accuracy on ER tasks in the facial modality. Findings clarify the relative complexity of ER across nonverbal modalities and identify potential cognitive correlates of this important socio-emotional skill.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Emotion Recognition Accuracy Across Nonverbal Modalities: Associations with Working Memory

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月5日

查看全文
  • Peyton Nault,
  • Michele Morningstar

摘要

Recognizing emotional intent from prosody (vocal emotion recognition [ER]) is found to be more challenging than the same ability with facial expressions (facial ER). However, disparities between these nonverbal modalities may be because most research compares ER accuracy for static faces and dynamic prosody. Interpreting dynamic expressions that unfold over time may be more difficult and require more advanced cognitive abilities, like working memory. We explored (a) differences in ER accuracy across tasks varying in modality (facial, vocal) and dynamism (static, dynamic), and (b) whether trait-level cognitive abilities (working memory, attentional control) differentially predicted ER accuracy across tasks. 300 adults (52.3% women) completed ER tasks (static voice [vocal bursts], static face, dynamic voice [prosody], dynamic face), working memory tasks (backwards digit span, N-back), and an attentional control task (antisaccade) online. A linear mixed-effects model of the effect of modality, dynamism, working memory, and attentional control on accuracy revealed that dynamic facial expressions were recognized more accurately than vocal prosody, but static faces and vocal bursts were recognized with similar accuracy. Better performance on the N-back task was linked to higher accuracy on ER tasks in the facial modality. Findings clarify the relative complexity of ER across nonverbal modalities and identify potential cognitive correlates of this important socio-emotional skill.