Page 155 - Demo

Interoception and Facial Emotion Perception1535Supplemental Materials for the full model fit). While the linear relations between Trait interoceptive accuracy and Perceived emotional intensity varied between emotion categories, the slope of the relation was only significantly different from 0 for neutral expressions (see Table 4 for all slope comparisons of significant interactions). In addition, the interaction between Emotion category and Autistic traits was significant, F(1,4835) = 17.26, p < .001 (see Figure 5B). We again observed variation between emotion categories regarding the relation between Autistic traits and Perceived emotional intensity (see Table S19 in the Supplemental Materials for the coefficients). Neutral expressions were, however, again the only emotion category for which the slope was significantly different from zero (see Table 4). As opposed to Experiment 1, the interaction between Interoceptive sensibility and Emotion category was not significant in this model (similar results for the model without Alexithymia can be found in Table S20 in the Supplemental Materials). Table 4. Estimated slope of the linear relation between self-report measures and perceived emotional intensity by emotion category, and results of the slope comparisons against zero Self-report measureEstimated slope 95% CI df t-ratio p-valueInteroceptive accuracy(IAS) Emotion categoryAngry 0.02 -0.10, 0.14 144 0.43 1Fearful -0.01 -0.13, 0.11 144 -0.21 1Happy -0.01 -0.12, 0.11 144 -0.17 1Sad 0.07 -0.05, 0.18 144 1.47 0.58Neutral 0.19 0.07, 0.31 144 4.23 < .001Autistic traits(AQ)Emotion categoryAngry -0.02 -0.14, 0.10 140 -0.37 1Fearful 0.01 -0.11, 0.13 140 0.28 1Happy -0.02 -0.14, 0.10 140 -0.50 1Sad 0.02 -0.10 0.14 140 0.37 1Neutral 0.20 0.00, 0.32 140 4.29 < .001Note. Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-method, and p-values are adjusted using the Holm-method. In contrast to Experiment 1, estimated slopes at all three examined points of the Autistic traits distribution (mean %u2013 1SD, mean, mean + 1SD) were negative and robustly different from zero for happy facial expressions in the Bayesian LMM with Confidence in emotion recognition as outcome (see Table 5). This indicates that, across wide parts of the distribution, there was a significant trend for lower