Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

More than words (and faces): evidence for a Stroop effect of prosody in emotion word processing

Filippi, Piera, Ocklenburg, Sebastian, Bowling, Daniel L., Heege, Larissa, Güntürkün, Onur, Newen, Albert, de Boer, Bart·2017·Cognition and Emotion
DOI 10.1080/02699931.2016.1177489
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Humans typically combine linguistic and nonlinguistic information to comprehend emotions. We adopted an emotion identification Stroop task to investigate how different channels interact in emotion communication. In experiment 1, synonyms of "happy" and "sad" were spoken with happy and sad prosody. Participants had more difficulty ignoring prosody than ignoring verbal content. In experiment 2, synonyms of "happy" and "sad" were spoken with happy and sad prosody, while happy or sad faces were displayed. Accuracy was lower when two channels expressed an emotion that was incongruent with the channel participants had to focus on, compared with the cross-channel congruence condition. When participants were required to focus on verbal content, accuracy was significantly lower also when prosody was incongruent with verbal content and face. This suggests that prosody biases emotional verbal content processing, even when conflicting with verbal content and face simultaneously. Implications for multimodal communication and language evolution studies are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699931.2016.1177489

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cutler A., 1974, Papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 117

Cited by

See all 52

Metadata

Authors
Filippi, P., Ocklenburg, S., Bowling, D. L., Heege, L., Güntürkün, O., Newen, A., & de Boer, B.
Affiliations
  • Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
  • Department of Biopsychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
  • Department of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Department of General and Biological Psychology, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
  • Center for Mind, Brain and Cognitive Evolution, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Venue
Cognition and Emotion
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-05-03
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
879-891
ISSN
  • 0269-9931
  • 1464-0600
DOI
10.1080/02699931.2016.1177489
Cited by
52
References
60
Language
en
Funders
European Research Council (293435)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.