Emotion fingerprints or emotion populations? A meta-analytic investigation of autonomic features of emotion categories
Siegel, E. H., Sands, M. K., Van den Noortgate, W., Condon, P., Chang, Y., Dy, J., Quigley, K. S., & Barrett, L. F. (2018). Emotion fingerprints or emotion populations? A meta-analytic investigation of autonomic features of emotion categories.
Supports the claim that autonomic effect-size patterns did not clearly distinguish one emotion category from another and varied substantially within categories. Laboratory inductions; the interpretation favours one theory of emotion.
Who was studied
202 studies measuring autonomic reactivity during laboratory emotion inductions in nonclinical adults.
Design
Meta-analysis
Level of evidence
Syntheses of controlled studies: meta-analyses and systematic reviews of experiments and trials.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel AConfidence MODERATE
A meta-analysis of 202 studies found that autonomic nervous system responses did not clearly distinguish one emotion category from another and varied substantially within categories; an earlier review of 134 publications, a partial counterpoint, reported considerable specificity when emotion subtypes are considered.
Scope
Laboratory emotion inductions in nonclinical adults, measured with peripheral physiology.
Caveat
The two syntheses disagree on specificity, so the claim is that no consistent fingerprint has been established, not that physiology is uninformative.
Last reviewed · Review due · no-autonomic-fingerprint
Sources
Siegel, E. H., Sands, M. K., Van den Noortgate, W., Condon, P., Chang, Y., Dy, J., Quigley, K. S., & Barrett, L. F. (2018). Emotion fingerprints or emotion populations? A meta-analytic investigation of autonomic features of emotion categories. doi:10.1037/bul0000128
Level AMeta-analysis
Supports the claim that autonomic effect-size patterns did not clearly distinguish one emotion category from another and varied substantially within categories. Laboratory inductions; the interpretation favours one theory of emotion.
Reports considerable autonomic response specificity when emotion subtypes are considered. It is never cited as evidence against autonomic fingerprints; it is cited only as a partial counterpoint to Siegel et al. (2018), and claims citing both must say so.
EmpiricalLevel AConfidence MODERATE
Meta-analyses found little evidence that discrete emotion categories map consistently and specifically onto distinct brain regions or autonomic response patterns; an earlier review, a partial counterpoint, reported considerable autonomic specificity when emotion subtypes are considered.
Scope
Laboratory neuroimaging and psychophysiology studies of emotion categories.
Caveat
Absence of a consistent signature across studies does not show that categories are unreal; multivariate methods and different inductions may yield different patterns.
Last reviewed · Review due · no-consistent-category-signature
Sources
Siegel, E. H., Sands, M. K., Van den Noortgate, W., Condon, P., Chang, Y., Dy, J., Quigley, K. S., & Barrett, L. F. (2018). Emotion fingerprints or emotion populations? A meta-analytic investigation of autonomic features of emotion categories. doi:10.1037/bul0000128
Level AMeta-analysis
Supports the claim that autonomic effect-size patterns did not clearly distinguish one emotion category from another and varied substantially within categories. Laboratory inductions; the interpretation favours one theory of emotion.
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11000446
Level DMeta-analysis
Supports the claim that there was little evidence for consistent and specific localisation of discrete emotion categories to distinct brain regions, and that interacting regions also involved in non-emotional operations were active across categories. Imaging findings are correlational with respect to emotion categories, so it is graded D; it was published with open peer commentaries, which were not reviewed here.
Reports considerable autonomic response specificity when emotion subtypes are considered. It is never cited as evidence against autonomic fingerprints; it is cited only as a partial counterpoint to Siegel et al. (2018), and claims citing both must say so.