2 results
6 The Relationship Between Inhibitory Control Impairment in Social Disinhibition Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
- Michaela Filipcikova, Skye McDonald
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, p. 306
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Inhibitory control impairment is highly prevalent following traumatic brain injury (TBI). There have not been any empirical investigations into whether this could explain social disinhibition following severe TBI, i.e. socially inappropriate behaviour of verbal, physical or sexual nature. Further, social context has proven to be important in studying social disinhibition and using a social version of an established task for the assessment of inhibitory control may provide a new perspective. Therefore, the objectives of this research study were to investigate the role of inhibitory control impairment in social disinhibition following severe TBI, using a social and a non-social task. We hypothesized that people with TBI and clinical levels of social disinhibition would perform worse on both task versions, when compared to those with low disinhibition levels. Further, we hypothesized that participants high on social disinhibition would perform worse on the social, when compared to the non-social version.
Participants and Methods:We conducted a between-group comparative study. Twenty-six adult participants with severe TBI were matched with 27 adult, healthy controls based on gender, age and education. Frontal Systems Behavior Scale and Social Disinhibition Interview were used to assess social disinhibition. A computerized task based on the cued go/no-go paradigm was used to assess inhibitory control. We included two versions of this task – a coloured (non-social) Go/No-Go with different colored rectangles, and an emotional (social) Go/No-Go with emotional faces serving as ‘go‘ and ‘no-go‘ cues. Two-way mixed ANCOVAs were used to test between-group differences in errors of commission and response speed.
Results:Unexpectedly, the TBI and the control group did not significantly differ on their levels of depression, anxiety, stress, or their level of social disinhibition. Overall, participants were slower (F(1,47) = 15.212, p<.001, ηp2 = .245) and made more errors of commission on no-go trials (F(1,44) = 11.560, p = .001, ηp2 = .208) on the social Go/No-Go task. There was no main effect of participants‘ brain injury status on errors of commission on no-go trials or mean reaction times. When categorized based on disinhibition level (high vs low), participants in the highdisinhibition group made more errors on the social task (F(1,41) = 4.095, p = .050, ηp2 = .091) than those in the low-disinhibition group, and more errors on the social, compared to the non-social task (task-group interaction (F(1,41) = 7.233, p = .010, ηp2 = .150)).
Conclusions:Based on these initial results, social disinhibition is associated with inhibitory control impairment, although this is only evident when a social inhibitory control task is used for assessment. We did not find any relationship between social disinhibition and the speed with which people react to stimuli. The results of this study add to the conceptualization of social disinhibition that is commonly present after severe TBI.
6 Why Do Cultures Affect Facial Emotion Perception? - A Systematic Review
- Ranran Li, Michaela Filipcikovä, Yi Xu, Halle Quang, Fiona Kumfor, Skye McDonald
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, p. 520
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Most emotion perception assessments were developed in western societies using English terms and Caucasian faces, so the extent to which they are cross-culturally valid is in question. To sort this, understanding the mechanisms of cultural variations is the key. In the past half-century, cross-cultural differences in perceiving facial emotions have been consistently reported and discussed, advancing knowledge to feed theoretical and practical interests. However, as these studies are heterogeneous in the questions asked and methods used, without understanding their association, we cannot provide a clear answer to the simple question: why do people from different cultures perceive facial emotions differently? This limitation represents a bottleneck for adapting western clinical assessments cross-culturally to suit the increasing trend of globalisation in research and testing. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review aiming to reveal the effect of culture on emotion perception from past cross-cultural studies on healthy people. We expected this review to bridge findings in basic research and clinical application.
Participants and Methods:The systematic review followed the framework outlined in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched five databases using three groups of keywords. We included all peer-reviewed original studies that 1) conducted cross-cultural comparison in facial emotion perception with healthy adults and 2) used a design that allowed identifying specific mechanisms to explain cultural variations.
The qualitative data synthesis included three steps: 1) categorising eligible studies according to the type of cross-cultural differences they investigated, 2) summarising the findings of each cluster, and 3) summarising the mechanisms revealed by the findings.
Results:We found the 122 eligible articles clustered into five groups that investigated 1) how race and in-group and out-group status affected facial emotion perception; 2) cultural differences in using context to identify facial expressions; 3) cultural differences in emotion conceptualisation and how they affected facial emotion perception; 4) cultural differences in interpreting facial muscle configurations; 5) how culture interacted with the inference making process.
Seven mechanisms underlying cultural variations in facial emotion perception were revealed. These are facial emotion templates, emotion conceptualisation, in/out-group differentiation, information surveying strategies, belief that expressers are independent agents, reliance on the face and other emotion expressing channels, and stereotypes. The relative importance of these factors may depend on the cultures chosen to compare and the situational settings that affect how they work together in real life.
Conclusions:This review, for the first time, systematically addresses the mechanisms underlying cross-cultural differences in facial emotion perception. Besides advancing knowledge about this rapidly growing area, it guides what needs to be considered when designing new tests, adapting existing tests, and assessing the risk of bias brought about by cross-cultural issues.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)