Ted (low: S-W = .92, df = 92, p < .001; intermediate: S-W = .93, df = 92, p < .001; high: S-W

Ted (low: S-W = .92, df = 92, p < .001; intermediate: S-W = .93, df = 92, p < .001; high: S-W = .93, df = 99, p < .001) and therefore normalised using log transformation (low: S-W = .98, df = 92, p = .164; intermediate: S-W = .99, df = 92, p = .480; high: S-W = .99, df = 99, p = .528). A repeated measures ANOVA for intensity with its three levels and revealed a main effect of intensity (F(2, 182) = 120.38, p < .001, partial ?= .569, power = 1.000). Pairwise comparisons showed, the intensities were all significantly different from each other (p's < .001). It took the participants about jir.2010.0097 100ms longer to respond to low intensity (M = 1075ms, SD = 330) than to intermediate intensity (M = 953ms, SD = 296) and to intermediate intensity also about 100ms longer than to high intensity (M = 850ms, SD = 240) (see Fig 6). The mean response times for each emotion category were calculated based on correct responses only: neutral (M = 664ms, SD = 145), happiness (M = 816ms, SD = 280), surprise (M = 849ms, SD = 285), sadness (M = 926ms, SD = 370), anger (M = 992ms, SD = 385), disgust (M = 994ms, SD = 451), fear (M = 1156ms, SD = 413), embarrassment (M = 1022ms, SD = 429), pride (M = 1023ms, SD = 937), contempt (M = 1700ms, SD = 1054) (see Fig 7).DiscussionStudy 1 has shown, as hypothesised, that the mean ICG-001 web accuracies for the emotion categories at each intensity level were well above chance for the 27 categories of the raw hit rates, as well as the unbiased hit rates with the exemption of the unbiased hit rate of contempt at low intensity. In line with the prediction, the emotion categories differed in accuracies and response latencies with emotions of high recognition also yielding fast responses and vice versa. Results alsoPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112 January 19,12 /Validation of the ADFES-BIVFig 5. Unbiased hit rates in percentages for the 9 emotion categories at each of the 3 intensity levels. Error bars represent standard errors of the means. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112.gshowed differences between levels of intensity of the expressions in both, the unbiased hit rates and raw hit rates, with the lowest mean accuracy for the low intensity expressions (raw: 56 , unbiased: 43 ) compared to the intermediate intensity expressions (raw: 68 , unbiased: 54 ), which were lower than the high intensity expressions (raw: 75 , unbiased: 63 ). The current study further found that the intensity of facial expressions has an influence on response times, as significantly ACY 241MedChemExpress Citarinostat faster responses of about 100ms occurred between the intensities. Fastest responses were given to high intensity expressions and slowest responses to low intensity expressions, also in line with the prediction.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112 j.jebo.2013.04.005 January 19,13 /Validation of the ADFES-BIVTable 3. Unbiased Hit Rates (Hu) for the Emotion Categories by Intensity. Emotion(n = 92) low Anger Sadness Disgust Fear Happiness Surprise Contempt Embarrassment Pride doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112.t003 41 (20.18) 53 (18.05) 46 (26.16) 39 (22.48) 36 (18.38) 63 (13.38) 17 (21.93) 40 (12.85) 24 (19.96) Hu Means (Standard Deviations) intermediate 56 (20.95) 66 (18.71) 48 (24.19) 51 (22.20) 57 (15.40) 69 (13.12) 23 (24.40) 49 (21.29) 38 (30.00) high 63 (20.89) 69 (19.00) 60 (26.44) 62 (25.34) 67 (16.30) 77 (15.10) 30 (29.69) 68 (23.95) 47 (33.43)The differences in accuracies and response latencies across intensity levels can be explained by varying difficulty to reco.Ted (low: S-W = .92, df = 92, p < .001; intermediate: S-W = .93, df = 92, p < .001; high: S-W = .93, df = 99, p < .001) and therefore normalised using log transformation (low: S-W = .98, df = 92, p = .164; intermediate: S-W = .99, df = 92, p = .480; high: S-W = .99, df = 99, p = .528). A repeated measures ANOVA for intensity with its three levels and revealed a main effect of intensity (F(2, 182) = 120.38, p < .001, partial ?= .569, power = 1.000). Pairwise comparisons showed, the intensities were all significantly different from each other (p's < .001). It took the participants about jir.2010.0097 100ms longer to respond to low intensity (M = 1075ms, SD = 330) than to intermediate intensity (M = 953ms, SD = 296) and to intermediate intensity also about 100ms longer than to high intensity (M = 850ms, SD = 240) (see Fig 6). The mean response times for each emotion category were calculated based on correct responses only: neutral (M = 664ms, SD = 145), happiness (M = 816ms, SD = 280), surprise (M = 849ms, SD = 285), sadness (M = 926ms, SD = 370), anger (M = 992ms, SD = 385), disgust (M = 994ms, SD = 451), fear (M = 1156ms, SD = 413), embarrassment (M = 1022ms, SD = 429), pride (M = 1023ms, SD = 937), contempt (M = 1700ms, SD = 1054) (see Fig 7).DiscussionStudy 1 has shown, as hypothesised, that the mean accuracies for the emotion categories at each intensity level were well above chance for the 27 categories of the raw hit rates, as well as the unbiased hit rates with the exemption of the unbiased hit rate of contempt at low intensity. In line with the prediction, the emotion categories differed in accuracies and response latencies with emotions of high recognition also yielding fast responses and vice versa. Results alsoPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112 January 19,12 /Validation of the ADFES-BIVFig 5. Unbiased hit rates in percentages for the 9 emotion categories at each of the 3 intensity levels. Error bars represent standard errors of the means. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112.gshowed differences between levels of intensity of the expressions in both, the unbiased hit rates and raw hit rates, with the lowest mean accuracy for the low intensity expressions (raw: 56 , unbiased: 43 ) compared to the intermediate intensity expressions (raw: 68 , unbiased: 54 ), which were lower than the high intensity expressions (raw: 75 , unbiased: 63 ). The current study further found that the intensity of facial expressions has an influence on response times, as significantly faster responses of about 100ms occurred between the intensities. Fastest responses were given to high intensity expressions and slowest responses to low intensity expressions, also in line with the prediction.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112 j.jebo.2013.04.005 January 19,13 /Validation of the ADFES-BIVTable 3. Unbiased Hit Rates (Hu) for the Emotion Categories by Intensity. Emotion(n = 92) low Anger Sadness Disgust Fear Happiness Surprise Contempt Embarrassment Pride doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147112.t003 41 (20.18) 53 (18.05) 46 (26.16) 39 (22.48) 36 (18.38) 63 (13.38) 17 (21.93) 40 (12.85) 24 (19.96) Hu Means (Standard Deviations) intermediate 56 (20.95) 66 (18.71) 48 (24.19) 51 (22.20) 57 (15.40) 69 (13.12) 23 (24.40) 49 (21.29) 38 (30.00) high 63 (20.89) 69 (19.00) 60 (26.44) 62 (25.34) 67 (16.30) 77 (15.10) 30 (29.69) 68 (23.95) 47 (33.43)The differences in accuracies and response latencies across intensity levels can be explained by varying difficulty to reco.