Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (7): 886-896    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00886
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 生态化微表情识别测验EMERT的建立 ——对JACBART微表情识别测验的改进与发展
张剑心;路 立;殷 明;朱传林;黄春露;刘电芝
 (苏州大学教育学院, 苏州 215123)
 The establishment of ecological microexpressions recognition test (EMERT): An improvement on JACBART microexpressions recognition test
 ZHANG Jianxin; LU Li; YIN Ming; ZHU Chuanlin; HUANG Chunlu; LIU Dianzhi
 (School of Education, Soochow University, Soochow 215123, China)
全文: PDF(1109 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  经典JACBART微表情识别测验只考察平静表情背景下微表情识别, 生态效度不高。本研究创建生态化微表情识别测验, 考察所有7种基本表情背景下的6种微表情识别特征。结果发现:(1)该测验具有良好的重测信度、校标效度和生态效度, 能够稳定有效地测量生态化微表情识别。(2)信效度检验揭示了生态化微表情识别特征。某些生态化微表情识别存在训练效应。生态化微表情与经典微表情或普通表情普遍相关。恐惧、悲伤、厌恶、愤怒微表情背景主效应显著; 惊讶和愉快微表情背景主效应不显著, 成对比较发现各背景下惊讶/愉快微表情差异不显著, 但是与普通表情有广泛的显著差异。用不同背景下微表情识别正确率的标准差定义生态化微表情识别波动, 发现生态化微表情识别具有稳定的波动性。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
张剑心
路立
殷明
朱传林
黄春露
刘电芝
关键词  生态化微表情识别测验 生态化微表情识别的特征 经典微表情 背景表情 生态化微表情识别的波动    
Abstract: Matsumoto et al. (2000) developed classical JACBART microexpressions recognition test, but it only measured microexpressions recognition between neutral expression backgrounds, which was just a special case of microexpressions in various backgrounds, so its ecological validity was not high. Zhang et al. (2014) only used sadness, neutral and pleasant expressions as backgrounds, and did not establish a standard test. Therefore this study for the first time set up a standard recognition test of ecological microexpressions with seven basic expressions as backgrounds and six basic expressions as microexpressions. Experiment adopted a 7 (backgrounds) × 6 (microexpressions/expressions) × 2 (the first and second tests) within subjects design. We chose sadness, fear, anger, disgust, neutral, surprise, and happiness expressions as backgrounds, and in one trail, ahead and back backgrounds were the same expression, whose time was 800 ms. We chose sadness, fear, anger, disgust, surprise, and happiness as microexpressions between ahead and back backgrounds, whose time was 133 ms. The participants should identify microexpressions as accurately as possible in each trial. For retest reliability, every participant needed to do two same tests, whose interval was 1 week. Before the first test, participants filled the openness inventory of big five personality scale, and before the second test they filled the depression inventory. The results showed that: (1) We used the accuracy of microexpression/expressions recognition in the first experiment as the dependent variable and did a 7 (backgrounds) × 6 (microexpressions/expressions) analysis of variance. Backgrounds and microexpressions/expressions were within-subject independent variables. Sphericity test of backgrounds showed p > 0.05; the main effect of backgrounds was significant, F (6,59) = 25.89, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.238, which indicated that background expressions affected microexpressions / expressions. Sphericity test of microexpressions/expression showed p < 0.05, then we did Greenhouse correction and found the main effect of microexpressions/expressions was significant, F (4.13, 84) = 4.13, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.696, which showed that microexpressions/expressions recognitions were different. Sphericity test of backgrounds ×microexpressions/expressions showed p < 0.05, then we did Greenhouse correction and found backgrounds and microexpressions/expressions had significant interaction effect, F (18.72, 84) = 18.72, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.172, which showed that the same microexpressions/expressions recognitions under different backgrounds were different, and different microexpressions/expressions recognitions under the same background were also different. (2) We did correlation analysis between two experiments and found that except two surprise microexpressions under disgust background were not related, p > 0.05, other microexpressions/expressions recognitions were significantly correlated, indicating the ecological microexpressions recognition test had nice retest reliability. We did paired sample t test between two experiments, and found that all sadness, disgust under neutral, disgust under surprise, fear under sadness, anger under surprise, happiness under surprise in the second experiment were significantly higher than in first, which showed there were training effects. (3) Correlation analysis found that ecological microexpressions recognitions significantly correlated with classic microexpressions recognitions (microexpressions recognitions between neutral backgrounds), proving that the test had good criterion validity. Fear, sadness, disgust, and anger microexpressions recognitions had significant background main effect, and paired comparison showed there were a wide range of differences among microexpressions recognitions under different backgrounds and also between ecological microexpressions recognitions and common expressions recognitions. Surprise and happy microexpressions recognitions had no significant background main effect, and paired comparison found that there was no difference among them, but there were quite a few differences between them and common expressions recognitions. Those showed that ecological microexpressions were different from common expressions or classic microexpressions, so the test had good ecological validity. This study for the first time used standard deviation of the same microexpressions recognitions under different backgrounds to define fluctuations of ecological microexpressions recognitions and found that they existed, which meaned all standard deviations were significantly greater than zero, and which also showed the test had good ecological validity. Conclusions: (1) This study created a standard ecological microexpressions recognition test, including six basic microexpressions under backgrounds of all seven basic expressions. The result found that the test had good retest reliability, criterion validity and ecological validity, which means it can measure ecological microexpressions recognition stably and effectively. (2) The reliability and validity tests revealed a lot of characteristics of ecological microexpressions recognition. There was training effect in some ecological microexpressions recognitions. Ecological microexpressions recognitions were generally associated with classic micro expression and ordinary expression. The background main effects of fear, sadness, disgust, and anger microexpressions were remarkable except surprise and happy microexpressions. But there were a wide range of significant differences between surprise/happy microexpressions and regular expressions. Background expressions affected ecological microexpressions recognitions. Ecological microexpressions recognitions had stable fluctuation.
Key words ecological microexpressions recognition test    characteristics of ecological microexpressions recognition    classical microexpressions    background expressions    fluctuation of ecological microexpressions recognition
收稿日期: 2016-09-08      出版日期: 2017-05-26
ZTFLH:     
  B842  
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金(31271084)资助。
通讯作者: 刘电芝, E-mail: liudzh@suda.edu.cn; 张剑心, E-mail: blade_kensin@163.com     E-mail: E-mail: liudzh@suda.edu.cn, E-mail: blade_kensin@163.com
引用本文:   
张剑心, 路立, 殷明, 朱传林, 黄春露, 刘电芝.  生态化微表情识别测验EMERT的建立 ——对JACBART微表情识别测验的改进与发展[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 886-896.
ZHANG Jianxin, LU Li, YIN Ming, ZHU Chuanlin, HUANG Chunlu, LIU Dianzhi.  The establishment of ecological microexpressions recognition test (EMERT): An improvement on JACBART microexpressions recognition test. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 886-896.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00886      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I7/886
[1] 白鹭, 毛伟宾, 王蕊, 张文海.  自然场景与身体动作对面孔表情识别的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1172-1183.
[2] 刘湍丽, 白学军.  部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1158-1171.
[3] 王燕, 侯博文, 李歆瑶, 李晓煦, 焦璐.  不同性别比和资源获取能力 对未婚男性择偶标准的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1195-1205.
[4] 杨睿娟, 游旭群.  对付出−回报失衡理论的推进——基于经济报酬对教师心理健康的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1184-1194.
[5] 李卫君, 张晶晶, 杨玉芳.  对比焦点的认知加工及其与重读的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1137-1149.
[6] 王沛, 谈晨皓, 崔诣晨.  我会在谁面前舍弃利益? ——博弈对象的能力与社会距离对名利 博弈倾向的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1206-1218.
[7] 毛江华, 廖建桥, 韩 翼, 刘文兴.  谦逊领导的影响机制和效应: 一个人际关系视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1219-1233.
[8] 刘玥, 刘红云.  基于双因子模型的测验总分和 维度分的合成方法[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1234-1246.
[9] 韩萌, 毛新瑞, 蔡梦彤, 贾茜, 郭春彦. 大小判断任务中正负号及其异同对 SNARC效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 995-1008.
[10] 付艺蕾, 罗跃嘉, 崔芳.  选择一致性影响结果评价的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
[11] 宋晓蕾, 张俊婷, 石杰, 游旭群.  语音反应方式下情绪效价对空间Simon效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1031-1040.
[12] 王益文, 付超, 任相峰, 林羽中, 郭丰波, 张 振, 黄亮, 袁博, 郑玉玮.  自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1080-1088.
[13] 章玉祉, 张积家.  义符启动范式下家族大小和类别一致性 对义符语义激活的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1041-1052.
[14] 王海忠, 范孝雯, 欧阳建颖.  消费者自我构念、独特性需求与 品牌标识形状偏好[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1113-1124.
[15] 张豹, 胡岑楼, 陈颜璋, 缪素媚, 黄赛.  工作记忆与知觉负载对工作记忆表征 引导注意的调节[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1009-1021.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn