Abstract-Participants haptically (versus visually) classified universal facial expressions of emotion (FEEs) depicted in simple 2D raised-line displays. Experiments 1 and 2 established that haptic classification was well above chance; face-inversion effects further indicated that the upright orientation was privileged. Experiment 2 added a third condition in which the normal configuration of the upright features was spatially scrambled. Results confirmed that configural processing played a critical role, since upright FEEs were classified more accurately and confidently than either scrambled or inverted FEEs, which did not differ. Because accuracy in both scrambled and inverted conditions was above chance, feature processing also played a role, as confirmed by commonalities across confusions for upright, inverted, and scrambled faces. Experiment 3 required participants to visually and haptically assign emotional valence (positive/negative) and magnitude to upright and inverted 2D FEE displays. While emotional magnitude could be assigned using either modality, haptic presentation led to more variable valence judgments. We also documented a new face-inversion effect for emotional valence visually, but not haptically. These results suggest that emotions can be interpreted from 2D displays presented haptically as well as visually; however, emotional impact is judged more reliably by vision than by touch. Potential applications of this work are also considered.

No abstract

Standardized protocols for validating the clinical accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors have been available since 1987. Some of them were developed by standards bodies and others by professional organizations. They have been well-tested through use and progressively improved through multiple revisions; however, many methodological differences exist between them. In addition, for the purpose of regulatory approval or marketing clearance, some protocols are recognized in some countries but not in others; thus, manufacturers have to validate their NIBP monitors to more than one protocol in order to market them worldwide. The use of different protocols not only makes it difficult to compare one device with another but also complicates the validation, regulatory approval, marketing, and public acceptance of NIBP monitors, creating undue burden on manufacturers and unnecessary confusion among users. There is a need for protocol developers, standards bodies, and regulatory authorities to work together to develop and agree on a single unified protocol or standard, one that builds on the strengths of the various protocols that have been developed so far. It is apparent that there is already a trend toward convergence of the various protocols into two protocols, namely, the ISO 81060-2:2009 standard and the 2010 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol. With further reconciliation and consensus, it should be possible to integrate the best features of the ISO, European Society of Hypertension, and other protocols, along with further improvements, into a single unified protocol or standard.

Existing standardized protocols for clinical validation of noninvasive blood pressure (BP) monitors do not have specific provisions for monitors that require patient-specific calibration by a secondary method or device before use. This article seeks to identify accuracy requirements and protocol considerations for such monitors. Measurement methods that require patient-specific calibration were reviewed to identify their clinical accuracy requirements. Validation studies of monitors that use these methods were reviewed to identify limitations in their protocols. For a monitor that requires patient-specific calibration, inadequate adaptation of existing protocols can fail to validate the accuracy of the monitor for its intended use. A protocol for such a monitor must have provisions to assess the monitor's accuracy in tracking intrapatient BP changes, from the calibrated level, after a calibration or between calibrations. Performing a patient-specific calibration with a patient at rest and immediately evaluating the monitor against a reference method with the patient also at rest will not assess this accuracy, because changes in BP at rest and over a short time are generally small compared with those that occur over 24 h. For validation purposes, intrapatient BP changes can be achieved by validating the monitor over an extended period or induced by means of physical maneuvers or pharmacological interventions. The secondary method or device used for the calibration must be accurate. The protocol must also have provisions to assess the monitor's ability to correct for changes in hydrostatic pressure, reject or correct for motion artefacts, and correct for other factors that affect measurement accuracy during use. There is a need to establish protocol provisions to ensure that noninvasive BP monitors that require patient-specific calibration are properly validated for their intended use before they are placed on the market or introduced into clinical use.