Cited by 117Face Recognition and PerceptionCategorization, perception, and languageMemory Processes and Influences

Categorical perception of facial expressions: Evidence for a “category adjustment” model

Open access
Roberson, Debi, Damjanovic, Ljubica, Pilling, Michael·2007·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

Four experiments probed the nature of categorical perception (CP) for facial expressions. A model based on naming alone failed to accurately predict performance onthese tasks. The data are instead consistentwith an extension of the category adjustment model (Huttenlocher et al., 2000), in which the generation of a verbal code (e.g., "happy") activated knowledge ofthe expression category's range andcentral tendency (prototype) in memory, which was retained as veridical perceptual memory faded.Further support for amemory bias toward the category center came from a consistently asymmetric pattern of within-category errors. Verbal interference in the retention interval selectively removed CP for facial expressions, under blocked, but not under randomized presentation conditions. However, verbal interference at encoding removed CPeven under randomized conditions and these effects were shown to extend even to caricatured expressions, which lie outside the normal range of expression categories.

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 · 10.3758/bf03193512

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Recent behavioral studies show that categorical perception of discrete emotion is supported by language.

    “In locationist accounts, language is thought to be epiphenomenal to discrete emotion (Ekman & Cordano, in press), although recent behavioral studies show that categorical perception of discrete emotion is supported by language (Fugate et al. 2010; Roberson & Davidoff 2000; Roberson et al. 2007).”

    From The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review (2012) · cites this paper as Roberson et al. 2007

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rosen, S., & Howell, P. (1987). Auditory, articulatory, and learning explanations of categorical perception in speech. In S. Harnad (Ed.),

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberson, D., Damjanovic, L., & Pilling, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • Oxford Brookes University (GB)
Corresponding author
Roberson, Debi
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2007-10
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
1814-1829
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W1999575787
Cited by
117
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
categorical perception, facial expressions, verbal interference, perceptual memory
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Models, Psychological, Semantics

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