Facial Expressions in Nonhuman Primates

Redican, William K.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-534004-5.50007-5

Cited by 184 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 137 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, because of the stereotypical head movements associated with the act of yawning (Deputte, 1994;Provine, 1986;Redican, 1975), this question is difficult to directly assess with functional neuroimaging. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the pIFG may be associated with yawning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of auditory contagious yawning

Arnott

Singhal

Goodale

2009

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of auditory contagious yawning

Arnott

Singhal

Goodale

2009

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Elaborate facial communication is a primate adaptation and a comparative approach has long been integral to our understanding of facial expressions (Andrew, 1963;ChevalierSkolnikoff, 1973;Darwin, 1872Darwin, /1998Redican, 1975;van Hooff, 1972van Hooff, , 1976. This evolutionary perspective on the form and function of facial movements allows us to gain further insight into the pressures shaping communicative capacities in primates (Parr, Waller, & Fugate, 2005;Schmidt & Cohn, 2001;Sherwood et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cross-species Comparison of Facial Morphology and Movement in Humans and Chimpanzees Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparative perspective has remained central to the study of human facial expressions since Darwin's [(1872Darwin's [( /1998. The expression of the emotions in man and animals (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press] insightful observations on the presence and significance of cross-species continuities and species-unique phenomena. However, cross-species comparisons are often difficult to draw due to methodological limitations. We report the application of a common methodology, the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to examine facial movement across two species of hominoids, namely humans and chimpanzees. FACS [Ekman & Friesen (1978). Facial action coding system. CA: Consulting Psychology Press] has been employed to identify the repertoire of human facial movements. We demonstrate that FACS can be applied to other species, but highlight that any modifications must be based on both underlying anatomy and detailed observational analysis of movements. Here we describe the ChimpFACS and use it to compare the repertoire of facial movement in chimpanzees and humans. While the underlying mimetic musculature shows minimal differences, important differences in facial morphology impact upon the identification and detection of related surface appearance changes across these two species.

show abstract

“…After all, the eyes of conspecifics serve not only as beacons that warn of the direction of impending danger, but in primates, at least, they also serve to mediate complex social interactions. In many species of anthropoid monkeys, for example, direct eye contact is part of a relatively stereotyped threat display (Redican, 1975;Perret et al, 1990). Thus, direct eye contact is avoided, even in the context of friendly social interactions (e.g., de Waal, 1989).…”

Section: Mutual Gazementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a science of other minds: escaping the argument by analogy

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Darwin, the idea of psychological continuity between humans and other animals has dominated theory and research in investigating the minds of other species. Indeed, the field of comparative psychology was founded on two assumptions. First, it was assumed that introspection could provide humans with reliable knowledge about the causal connection between specific mental states and specific behaviors. Second, it was assumed that in those cases in which other species exhibited behaviors similar to our own, similar psychological causes were at work. In this paper. we show how this argument by analogy is flawed with respect to the case of second-order mental states. As a test case, we focus on the question of how other species conceive of visual attention, and in particular whether chimpanzees interpret seeing as a mentalistic event involving internal states of perception, attention, and belief. We conclude that chimpanzees do not reason about seeing in this manner, and indeed, there is considerable reason to suppose that they do not harbor representations of mental states in general. We propose a reinterpretation model in which the majority of the rich social behaviors that humans and other primates share in common emerged long before the human lineage evolved the psychological means of interpreting those behaviors in mentalistic terms. Although humans, chimpanzees, and most other species may be said to possess mental states, humans alone may have evolved a cognitive specialization for reasoning about such states.

show abstract

Facial Expressions in Nonhuman Primates

Cited by 184 publications

References 137 publications

An investigation of auditory contagious yawning

An investigation of auditory contagious yawning

A Cross-species Comparison of Facial Morphology and Movement in Humans and Chimpanzees Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)

Toward a science of other minds: escaping the argument by analogy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About