Cited by 198Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchFace Recognition and PerceptionTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Meta-analysis of facial affect recognition difficulties after traumatic brain injury.

Open access
Babbage, Duncan R., Yim, Jackki, Zupan, Barbra, Neumann, Dawn, Tomita, Machiko R., Willer, Barry·2011·Neuropsychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Difficulties in communication and social relationships present a formidable challenge for many people after traumatic brain injury (TBI). These difficulties are likely to be partially attributable to problems with emotion perception. Mounting evidence shows facial affect recognition to be particularly difficult after TBI. However, no attempt has been made to systematically estimate the magnitude of this problem or the frequency with which it occurs. METHOD: A meta-analysis is presented examining the magnitude of facial affect recognition difficulties after TBI. From this, the frequency of these impairments in the TBI population is estimated. Effect sizes were calculated from 13 studies that compared adults with moderate to severe TBI to matched healthy controls on static measures of facial affect recognition. RESULTS: The studies collectively presented data from 296 adults with TBI and 296 matched controls. The overall weighted mean effect size for the 13 studies was -1.11, indicating people with TBI on average perform about 1.1 SD below healthy peers on measures of facial affect recognition. Based on estimation of the TBI population standard deviation and modeling of likely distribution shape, it is estimated that between 13% and 39% of people with moderate to severe TBI may have significant difficulties with facial affect recognition, depending on the cut-off criterion used. CONCLUSION: This is clearly an area that warrants attention, particularly examining techniques for the rehabilitation of these deficits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021908

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Babbage, D. R., Yim, J., Zupan, B., Neumann, D., Tomita, M. R., & Willer, B.
Affiliations
  • Brock University (CA)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Neuropsychology
Published
2011-05
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
277-285
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
OpenAlex
W2128001078
Cited by
198
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, facial expression recognition, emotion perception, social communication deficits, social cognition, effect size, rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Brain Injuries, Discrimination, Psychological, Facial Expression, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review