Page 162 - Demo

Chapter 5160the two experiments (Experiment 1: anger, Experiment 2: sadness). Inconsistent results with regard to the recognition of distinct facial emotional expressions have also been reported in autistic samples, suggesting specifically worse recognition performance of fear (Uljarevic & Hamilton, 2013), sadness (Wallace et al., 2011), disgust (Enticott et al., 2014; Law Smith et al., 2010), happiness (Eack et al., 2015), or anger (Enticott et al., 2014). While differences in task demands, including stimuli and task complexity, have been suggested as one cause of inconsistencies in autistic samples (Harms et al., 2010), this could not have been the case in the current study, as the same emotion recognition task was performed in both experiments. There were, however, systematic differences in the experimental setting and in sample characteristics, which could have driven the diverging results. Moreover, systematic response biases can distort accuracy scores in categorical judgments (Wagner, 1993), such as on observed emotional facial expressions. In our case, additional analyses with unbiased recognition scores as outcome indicated that these distortions might have played a role in the observed reduced recognition of sad expressions with higher autistic trait levels in Experiment 2, but likely not in the observed reduced recognition of angry expressions (Experiment 1) or the observed increased recognition of neutral expressions (Experiment 2) with higher autistic trait levels (see Supplemental Materials). This increased recognition of neutral facial expressions with higher autistic trait levels in Experiment 2 unexpected. Perceiving emotionality in neutral facial expressions is a commonly made mistake in the general population, and this bias has been associated with the importance of facial emotion perception in navigating our social world (Albohn Daniel N.and Brandenburg, 2019). By following a rule-based path to facial emotion recognition, which rather relies on the presence/absence of distinct features (Rutherford & McIntosh, 2007), one might be less prone to incorrectly interpret emotionality into neutral faces (i.e., less %u201cfalse alarms%u201d). Individuals on the autism spectrum have been suggested to follow this rule-based path to emotion recognition, as might non-autistic individuals with high autistic trait levels. The interpretation of facial expressions could further be facilitated by an accurate sensation of physiological signal changes in an emotion recognition context. Based on interoception research in autism (DuBois et al., 2016), we assumed that this path to emotion recognition might be less reliable in nonautistic individuals with higher autistic trait levels. Against our expectations, we did not find that interoceptive accuracy predicted emotion recognition accuracy,