Cited by 135Face Recognition and PerceptionAction Observation and SynchronizationFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research

Facial mimicry is not necessary to recognize emotion: Facial expression recognition by people with Moebius syndrome

Rives Bogart, Kathleen, Matsumoto, David·2010·Social Neuroscience

Abstract

According to the reverse simulation model of embodied simulation theory, we recognize others' emotions by subtly mimicking their expressions, which allows us to feel the corresponding emotion through facial feedback. Previous studies examining whether facial mimicry is necessary for facial expression recognition were limited by potentially distracting manipulations intended to artificially restrict facial mimicry or very small samples of people with facial paralysis. We addressed these limitations by collecting the largest sample to date of people with Moebius syndrome, a condition characterized by congenital bilateral facial paralysis. In this Internet-based study, 37 adults with Moebius syndrome and 37 matched control participants completed a facial expression recognition task. People with Moebius syndrome did not differ from the control group or normative data in emotion recognition accuracy, and accuracy was not related to extent of ability to produce facial expressions. Our results do not support the hypothesis that reverse simulation with facial mimicry is necessary for facial expression recognition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470910903395692

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Subjects with Möbius syndrome did not significantly differ from the control group in emotion recognition.

    “Specifically, Bogart's and Matsumoto's (2010) study revealed that subjects with Möbius syndrome (facial paralysis) did not significantly differ from the control group in emotion recognition, contradicting the view that facial mimicry is necessary for emotion recognition.”
  • The empirical support for the role of mimicry in emotion processing has remained controversial.

    “Despite a growing body of literature, the empirical support for the role of mimicry in emotion processing has remained controversial (Assogna and Pontieri, 2008;Bogart and Matsumoto, 2010;Wagenmakers et al., 2016).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rives Bogart, K., & Matsumoto, D.
Affiliations
San Francisco State University (US)
Venue
Social Neuroscience
Published
2010-04
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
241-251
ISSN
  • 1747-0919 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0927
OpenAlex
W2098793505
Cited by
135
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Facial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Keywords
facial mimicry, facial expression recognition, emotion recognition, Moebius syndrome, facial paralysis, embodied simulation, facial feedback, congenital facial paralysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Emotions, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Case-Control Studies, Mobius Syndrome, Recognition, Psychology, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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