To compare facial expressiveness (FE) of infants with and without craniofacial microsomia (cases and controls, respectively) and to compare phenotypic variation among cases in relation to FE.
Design:
Positive and negative affect was elicited in response to standardized emotion inductions, video recorded, and manually coded from video using the Facial Action Coding System for Infants and Young Children.
Setting:
Five craniofacial centers: Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Illinois–Chicago, and University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.
Participants:
Eighty ethnically diverse 12- to 14-month-old infants.
Main Outcome Measures:
FE was measured on a frame-by-frame basis as the sum of 9 observed facial action units (AUs) representative of positive and negative affect.
Results:
FE differed between conditions intended to elicit positive and negative affect (95% confidence interval = 0.09-0.66, P = .01). FE failed to differ between cases and controls (ES = –0.16 to –0.02, P = .47 to .92). Among cases, those with and without mandibular hypoplasia showed similar levels of FE (ES = –0.38 to 0.54, P = .10 to .66).
Conclusions:
FE varied between positive and negative affect, and cases and controls responded similarly. Null findings for case/control differences may be attributable to a lower than anticipated prevalence of nerve palsy among cases, the selection of AUs, or the use of manual coding. In future research, we will reexamine group differences using an automated, computer vision approach that can cover a broader range of facial movements and their dynamics.
BarisicIOdakLLoaneMGarneEWellesleyDCalzolariEDolkHAddorMCArriolaLBergmanJ. Prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and clinical features of oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum: a registry-based study in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22:1026–1033.
2.
BirgfeldCBHeikeCLSaltzmanBSLerouxBGEvansKNLuquettiDV. Reliable classification of facial phenotypic variation in craniofacial microsomia: a comparison of physical exam and photographs. Head Face Med. 2016;12:14.
3.
Bolzani-DinehartLMessingerDSAcostaSCasselTAmbadarZCohnJ. Adult perceptions of positive and negative infant emotional expressions. Infancy. 2005;8:279–303.
4.
BrennanRLPredigerDJ. Coefficient kappa: some issues, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas. 1981;41:687–699.
5.
CamrasLAOsterHCamposJJBakemanR. Emotional facial expressions in European-American, Japanese, and Chinese children. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1000:135–151.
6.
CamrasLAOsterHCamposJCamposRUjiieTMiyakeKWangLMengZ. Production of emotional facial expressions in European American, Japanese, and Chinese infants. Dev Psychol. 1998;34:616–628.
7.
ClineJMHicksKEPatelKG. Characterization of facial paresis in hemifacial microsomia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150:188–193.
8.
CamposJJFrankelCBCamrasL. On the nature of emotion regulation. Child Dev. 2004;75:377–394.
9.
CohnJFDe la TorreF. Automated face analysis for affective computing. In: CalvoRAD’MelloSKGratchJKappasA, eds. Handbook of Affective Computing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015:131–150.
10.
CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988:400.
11.
CohenNCohenEGaieroAZeccaSFicheraGBaldiFGiordanettoJFMercierJMCohenA. Maxillofacial features and systemic malformations in expanded spectrum Hemifacial Microsomia. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173:1208–1218.
12.
ColePMMartinSEDennisTA. Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Dev. 2004:75:317–333.
13.
CousleyRR. A comparison of two classification systems for hemifacial microsomia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31:78–82.
14.
DibekliogluHHammalZCohnJF. Multimodal measurement of depression severity in the context of clinical interviews. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017;doi:10.1109/JBHI.2017.2676878. [Epub ahead of print].
15.
DibekliogluHHammalZYangYCohnJF. Multimodal detection of depression in clinical interviews. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI), Seattle, WA; 2015.
16.
DuftonLMSpeltzMLKellyJPLerouxBCollettBRWerlerMM. Psychosocial outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36:794–805.
17.
EkmanPFriesenWVHagerJC. Facial Action Coding System [e-book]. Salt Lake City, UT: Research Nexus; 2002.
18.
GoldsmithHHRothbartMK. The Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon; 1999.
19.
GougoutasAJSinghDJLowDWBartlettSP. Hemifacial microsomia: clinical features and pictographic representations of the OMENS classification system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:112e–120e.
20.
HarrisJKallenBRobertE. The epidemiology of anotia and microtia. J Med Genet. 1996;33:809–813.
21.
HeikeCLStueckleLPStuhaugETPimentaLADrakeAFVivaldiDSieKCBirgfeldCB. Photographic protocol for image acquisition in craniofacial microsomia. Head Face Med. 2011;7:25.
22.
HeikeCLWallaceESpeltzMLSieboldBWerlerMMHingAVBirgfeldCBCollettBRLerouxBGLuquettiDV. Characterizing facial features in individuals with craniofacial microsomia: a systematic approach for clinical research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106:915–926.
23.
HorganJEPadwaBLLaBrieRAMullikenJB. OMENS-Plus: analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:405–412.
24.
MarisCLEndrigaMCOmnellMLSpeltzML. Psychosocial adjustment in twin pairs with and without hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:43–50.
25.
MatiasRCohnJF. Are MAX-specified infant facial expressions during face-to-face interaction consistent with differential emotions theory?Dev Psychol. 1993;29:524–531.
26.
MattsonWICohnJFMahoorMHGangiDNMessingerDS. Darwin’s Duchenne: eye constriction during infant PosET and distress. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80161.
27.
MessingerDSMattsonWIMahoorMHCohnJF. The eyes have it: Making positive expressions more positive and negative expressions more negative. Emotion. 2012;12–430.
28.
OsterH. Emotion in the infant’s face: insights from the study of infants with facial anomalies. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1000:197–204.
29.
OsterH. The repertoire of infant facial expressions: an ontogenetic perspective. In: NadelJMuirD, eds. Emotional Development: Recent Research Advances. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:261–292.
30.
PadwaBLEvansCAPillemerFC. Psychosocial adjustment in children with hemifacial microsomia and other craniofacial deformities. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:354–359.
31.
PertschukMJWhitakerLA. Psychosocial adjustment and craniofacial malformations in childhood. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:177–184.
32.
PeterssonRSSampsonDESidmanJD. Dynamic facial reanimation with orthodromic temporalis tendon transfer in children. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014;16:432–436.
33.
PillemerFGCookKV. The psychosocial adjustment of pediatric craniofacial patients after surgery. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26:201–207.
34.
PoswilloD. The aetiology and pathogenesis of craniofacial deformity. Development. 1988;103:207–212.
35.
RosensteinDOsterH. Differential facial responses to four basic tastes in newborns. Child Dev. 1988;59:1555–1568.
36.
RothmanKJ. Six persistent research misconceptions. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:1060–1064.
37.
SegalLOsterHCohenMCaspiBMeyersMBrownD. Smiling and fussing in seven-month-old preterm and full-term black infants in the still-face situation. Child Dev. 1995;66:1829–1843.
38.
SnyderHTBilboulMJPopeAW. Psychosocial adjustment in adolescents with craniofacial anomalies: a comparison of parents and self-reports. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:548–555.
39.
TronickEZ. Emotions and emotional communication in infants. Am Psychol. 1989;44:112–119.
