News Medical. Net  just reported on research by Rebecca Riddell and colleagues suggesting that a single stereotyped pain expression during infancy does not exist.  The authors say that each facial expression is attached to a different type of distress.

They found 7 distinct facial expressions after vaccinations on infants from 2 months to 12 months, which could signal different types of pain and aid communication of distress to caregivers.

“We propose that these seven categories of expressions may have evolved to allow infants to communicate two crucial broad states to caregivers: level of distress and degree of regulation from distress,” write Riddell et al.

The researchers categorized babies’ facial expressions using the Facial Action Coding System for Infants and Young Children (BabyFACS).  According to this system, the authors found that the expression of the Red facial type (defined as cry, accompanied by oblique eyebrows) within 1 minute of a vaccination varied significantly according to age.   For example, 7.49% of 2-month-old babies showed the Red facial expression compared with 5.12% of 4-month olds, 9.51% of 6-month olds, and 18.87% of 12-month olds.

The Green facial type (horizontal mouth, closed eyes) changed significantly with age, with 2.49% of 2-month olds expressing it compared with 2.40% of 4-month olds, 2.51% of 6-month olds, and 0.00% of 12-month olds.

A quick note on a similar topic:  The Times of India has reported that the gene which determines human facial expressions has been identified.  Researchers used MRI scans to identify 5 genes that determine human facial expressions.

“These are exciting first results that mark the beginning of the genetic understanding of human facial morphology…Perhaps some time it will be possible to draw a phantom portrait of a person solely from his or her DNA left behind, which provides interesting applications such as in forensics.  We already can predict from DNA certain eye and hair colors with quite high accuracies,”  said Professor Manfred Kayser from the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

What are your thoughts on the unveiling of  Facial Expression Genes ? 

Zheng Wang, Photo courtesy of Science Daily (taken by Kevin Fitzsimons)

 ScienceDaily reports on another way people avoid information that challenges their beliefs.   The 2008 study found that:

Partisan participants reacted strongly to ads featuring their favored candidate, but barely responded to ads featuring the rival candidate.  In comparison, people who didn’t favor one candidate over the other showed similar physiological response patterns and intensity to ads for both candidates.

“A lot of research has shown that, behaviorally, we tend to selectively expose ourselves to information that reinforces our existing opinions. But this study further suggests that even when exposed to information, our attention to what is presented is highly selective, as well.”  Says Zheng Wang, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University and co-author of the study.

Participants were hooked up to electrodes that measured four physiological responses: heart rate, skin conductance  and muscle movements around the cheekbone and around the eyebrows.

While hooked up, each participant watched 12 campaign ads while their physiological reactions were recorded.  After watching the ads, they filled out measures of how positively and negatively they regarded the person represented in the campaign ad.

Simply put Wang states, “If people are exposed to information in ads regarding a candidate they oppose, they respond by basically tuning out, “  She goes on to point out, “At any one time, ad viewers’ reactions are affected not just by what they are seeing at that exact moment, but also by what came before in the ad.  The dynamical feedback model puts it all together to see how people react in a real-time, real-world way.”

The feedback model suggests that the positive feelings that viewers have are amplified as they watch an ad for their candidate.  But for opponents, the feedback effects actually seem to decrease their response over time as they watch the ad, that is, they tune out.

Do you tune out the ads for people you don’t support ?  Is this study Interesting or Insulting ?
Share your thoughts with the Humintell Community

The Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP) set out to answer the question, how are emotions generated in the brain?  They are using mice as a model to map the emotional circuitry within the neural network of the brain in an effort to study how activity in these areas elicit emotions.

Science 2.0 reports on this interesting research project.  Surprisingly,  mice have a very similar brain anatomy to humans; therefore, are great candidates for this study.

The scientists set out with the premise that our emotions are based on the activity of nerve cells. Emotions cause activity to happen in several parts of the brain such as the neocortex, the brain stem and an almond-shaped region in the limbic system called the amygdala.

The researchers plan to navigate their hypothesis via virus interactions with the brain; hopefully, helping them to fully understand the origin of emotions.  Why use viruses?  Well, they infect nerve cells and migrate along them to the brain.  They will inject a florescent protein into the virus to track the path it takes through the brain.

This project will also answer the question, ‘how genes and pharmaceutical substances affect the activity of neuronal circuits and influence emotions?’ .

In an interesting and related article by Science Codex, purports that the language we use when describing an event affects our overall mood.

The study focused on what type of verbiage we use when we talk about a past event.  They noted that we can describe events either as already completed (I ran) or as ongoing (I was running).   Why is this Important? 

The researchers suggest that to improve your mood you should talk about a negative past event as something that has already happened opposed to an event that was happening.  How does that Help?

Their findings revealed that people who described a positive event with words that suggested it was ongoing felt more positive. And when they described a negative event in the same way, they felt more negative.

 Let the Humintell community know your thoughts on this research