Facial Feedback in Implicit Sequence Learning

There is continuous debate how closely or loosely emotion is linked to behavior and especially to facial expressions. In strong versions of the so-called facial feedback hypothesis, it is assumed that facial activity can intensify, modulate and initiate emotions. The hypothesis has been largely investigated with various emotions, however, surprise was tested only in a few studies. Additionally, it has been discussed frequently how obtrusively manipulations of facial feedback as well as the dependent measures are. Thus, in the present experiment we analyzed whether unobtrusive facial feedback of surprise versus no-surprise can modulate reactions following deviations in an implicit sequence learning task. Participants had to quickly and accurately press keys which corresponded to one of four letters appearing at the screen. After several blocks in which a standard sequence (consisting of a predefined order of 12 letters) was repeated, standard sequences and deviation sequences (i.e. one element differed from the standard sequence) were intermixed. The results confirmed our hypothesis: Participants of the surprise face condition showed longer reaction times to deviation sequences than to standard sequences. In contrast, participants of the no-surprise face condition did not show this difference in reaction times. Results were discussed with respect to implicit learning as well as to theories on emotion and facial feedback taking the special status of surprise into account (AU)

No disponible

Diagnostic performance of rapid influenza antigen assays in patients infected with the new influenza A (H1N1) virus.

BACKGROUND: The new swine influenza (H1N1) requires fast and accurate diagnosis. Currently, there are few reports about the diagnostic performance of influenza antigen tests with regard to the H1N1 virus infection. We evaluated the reactivity of eight commercially available rapid antigen tests in samples from confirmed infected patients. METHODS: From 23 patients tested positive by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), parallel testing with the antigen tests QuickVue Influenza A+B (Quidel Corporation), Binax NOW Flu A and B (Binax), Clearview Exact Influenza A and B (Inverness medical), TRUFLU (Meridian Bioscience), Directigen EZ Flu A+B (Becton Dickinson), Influenza A and B (Diagnostik Nord), Xpect Flu A and B (remel) and Influenza Antigen Quick (Generic Assays) was performed. RESULTS: Only few antigen tests showed positive reactivity in six of the 23 samples. The virus load of the reactive samples as indicated by the PCR cycle threshold was high. Negative results of rapid influenza tests do not rule out infection with the new influenza A (H1N1) virus. Their analytical sensitivity with reference to the virus load is low and not reproducible. CONCLUSIONS: As reliable laboratory results during a pandemic are essential, the diagnostic use of rapid influenza tests seems to be questionable.