Viewing distance matter to perceived intensity of facial expressions

Abstract

In our daily perception of facial expressions, we depend on an ability to generalize across the varied distances at which they may appear. This is important to how we interpret the quality and the intensity of the expression. Previous research has not investigated whether this so called perceptual constancy also applies to the experienced intensity of facial expressions. Using a psychophysical measure (Borg CR100 scale) the present study aimed to further investigate perceptual constancy of happy and angry facial expressions at varied sizes, which is a proxy for varying viewing distances. Seventy-one (42 females) participants rated the intensity and valence of facial expressions varying in distance and intensity. The results demonstrated that the perceived intensity (PI) of the emotional facial expression was dependent on the distance of the face and the person perceiving it. An interaction effect was noted, indicating that close-up faces are perceived as more intense than faces at a distance and that this effect is stronger the more intense the facial expression truly is. The present study raises considerations regarding constancy of the PI of happy and angry facial expressions at varied distances.

Simulated proximity enhances perceptual and physiological responses to emotional facial expressions

“…Why do we perceive proximal emotional faces as more intense? The interpretation of our and earlier findings 9 , 10 could not be explained only by differences in early visual processing 8 . Since closer faces occupy larger retinal size, they can induce more arousal and greater concentration of attention 31 , 55 .…”

“…The aim of the present study was to test whether the previously documented impact of proximal versus distant faces on emotional intensity rating 10 was associated with early increased physiological responses both during observation and imitation of facial emotional expressions. We presented to healthy volunteers videos of angry or happy faces in conditions simulating proximal or distant locations.…”

“…Other studies show that emotion recognition was impacted by stimulus size (simulated viewing distances ranged from 3.3 to 105.6 m) and by the image frequency spectrum 5 , or by the image resolution 6 , with smaller faces taking longer to categorize and to discriminate than larger ones 7 , 8 . Importantly to the current study, the perceived intensity of the emotional facial expression may also be affected by the distance of the face stimulus 9 , 10 , however the exact mechanisms underlying this modulation in relation to space is currently poorly understood.…”

Close - but not distant - conditioned flanker emotion affects crowding

“…Hence, before concluding that conditioned target emotion does not affect crowding in real 3D, targets were to be presented at various distances, because presentation distance might be an important covariate for the effect of emotion to occur (e.g. Basanovic et al, 2019 ; Gerhardsson, Högman, & Fischer, 2015 ; Hager & Ekman, 1979 ; Mühlberger et al, 2008 ; Smith & Schyns, 2009 ). Therefore, in Experiment 2 , negatively or neutrally conditioned targets were presented either close to the observer or farther away than the fixation depth, on which not-conditioned flankers were presented.…”

“… Hager & Ekman, 1979 ; Smith & Schyns, 2009 ). Furthermore, Gerhardsson, Högman, & Fischer (2015) demonstrated a decline in perceived intensity of emotional facial expressions with increasing viewing distance by manipulating perceived distance via size changes. In addition, reactions to other threatening emotional stimuli were shown to depend on spatial distance.…”