In describing the processes that contribute to the meaning of a perceived smile, Niedenthal et al. astutely capture the complex nature of emotion processing. We applaud the approach taken by the authors in the current article: Embodied perspectives on cognition are in need of exactly such a detailed investigation of the interaction between conceptual and embodied knowledge. The question is not whether, but how sensorimotor processes and cognition interact (e.g., Fodor Reference Fodor1985) The SIMS model illustrates how embodied responses to facial emotional expressions facilitate recognition of these expressions. We believe, however, that a SIMS model that explicitly addresses the dynamic interaction between conceptual and embodied knowledge would provide an even more useful framework to develop and test specific predictions.
Given that an embodied response to smiles (e.g., motor activation in the facial muscles) emerges around 500–1000 msec after observation of a smile (Dimberg & Petterson Reference Dimberg and Petterson2000; Dimberg et al. Reference Dimberg, Thunberg and Elmehed2000), it seems important to integrate more rapid cognitive processes in the SIMS model. First, before a smile is even observed, contextual information might play an essential role in determining which brain areas are activated when eye contact is established (e.g., OFC activation when talking to a loved one), and therefore, the type of smile that is expected. Second, the evaluative connotation of a smile and more specific conceptual information are activated rapidly at the moment that a smile is observed (within 120 msec, Ruys & Stapel Reference Ruys and Stapel2008b; see also Palermo & Rhodes Reference Palermo and Rhodes2007).
Considering that information processing occurs as efficiently as possible, it seems unlikely for embodied simulations to emerge for the purpose of recognition when associative knowledge structures rapidly enable the recognition of functional smiles. Although Niedenthal et al. acknowledge that contextually driven, rapid processing occurs, they also argue that in many circumstances embodied simulations allow observers to infer the correct meaning of ambiguous smiles, when conceptual or stereotypical knowledge would lead to errors of interpretation.
Two possible mechanisms may cause activation to occur of the different brain areas that allow people to distinguish between affiliative, enjoyment, and dominance smiles. The first possibility is that these three types of smiles have unique and distinguishable motor patterns. Assuming that an observer correctly simulates the observed smile, different patterns of brain activation lead to somatosensory activation that matches the observed smile, which subsequently facilitates the correct recognition of the smile's meaning. However, the possibility of unique motor patterns for these three types of smiles is not what Niedenthal et al. seem to advocate, and this idea lacks empirical support.
The second possibility is that rapidly activated contextual and conceptual information guides and constrains the embodied responses that emerge when observing a smile. Indeed, “happy” or “angry” conceptual information has been shown to lead to the activation of different facial muscles when observing identical faces with ambiguous facial expressions (Halberstadt et al. Reference Halberstadt, Winkielman, Niedenthal and Dalle2009). When a baby produces a smile with an unclear meaning, observers are unlikely to interpret the smile as a dominance smile, given that conceptual knowledge informs us that babies do not express dominance smiles. Niedenthal et al. might argue that in such a situation, where the exact meaning of the smile is ambiguous, conceptual knowledge of smiling babies will provide the possible meaning of the smile. It is exactly this interplay between conceptual and embodied information in determining the meaning of smiles that we propose deserves attention in the SIMS model.
As a further example, take the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) activation which occurs when perceiving smiles from one's own offspring (compared to seeing other people's smiling offspring). OFC activation may help to distinguish between our own and other people's offspring and to distinguish between affiliative and enjoyment smiles. For OFC activation to be able to distinguish between an affilitative and enjoyment smile from our own children, the OFC needs to be differentially activated when we see our own children smile different functional smiles. Although this is an empirical question, the current literature suggests the OFC is activated when seeing our offspring display any emotional reaction, such as smiling, but also crying (Noriuchi et al. Reference Noriuchi, Kikuchi and Senoo2008). We believe the SIMS model needs to incorporate the interaction between contextual conceptual information and embodied simulation to account for how people differentiate between the different meanings of functional smiles.
What is the function of the embodied simulation of an affiliative smile, when contextual conceptual information and rapid evaluative processing can often determine the meaning of such a smile much more efficiently? We believe that a SIMS model that goes beyond the passive observer can provide an answer by examining the role embodied simulations play in the social dynamics in which smiling behavior typically occurs. The simulation of smiles is not only a motor process that contributes to understanding, but also a process that serves a communicative function (Ruys & Stapel Reference Ruys and Stapel2008a) involving social cognitive mechanisms (Schilbach et al. Reference Schilbach, Eickhoff, Mojzisch and Vogeley2008).
As described by Niedenthal et al., social contextual variables can sometimes inhibit the simulation of an observed smile. Indeed, the automatic imitation or representation of the actions of others has been shown to be moderated by social information (e.g., Longo & Bertenthal Reference Longo and Bertenthal2009; Ruys & Aarts, in press; van Baaren et al. Reference van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter and van Knippenberg2003). Although speculative, OFC activation and rapid processing of the evaluative connotation of a smile may together determine whether social inhibition of the motor simulation occurs or not. By determining whether corresponding somatosensory experiences are produced on a dyadic level, embodied simulations can contribute to the meaningfulness of social interactions (e.g., Parkinson Reference Parkinson1996).
Understanding the meaning of smiles can be further determined by a range of bodily and cognitive factors, such as the observer's somatosensory experience at the time a smile is observed, or the observer's expectations and goals. We believe that understanding is an emergent process, which is guided and constrained by the dynamic interaction between embodied and conceptual information (see also, Mesquita et al. Reference Mesquita, Barrett and Smith2010). Specifying this interaction should be the focus of future theoretical and empirical work.
You have
Access
In describing the processes that contribute to the meaning of a perceived smile, Niedenthal et al. astutely capture the complex nature of emotion processing. We applaud the approach taken by the authors in the current article: Embodied perspectives on cognition are in need of exactly such a detailed investigation of the interaction between conceptual and embodied knowledge. The question is not whether, but how sensorimotor processes and cognition interact (e.g., Fodor Reference Fodor1985) The SIMS model illustrates how embodied responses to facial emotional expressions facilitate recognition of these expressions. We believe, however, that a SIMS model that explicitly addresses the dynamic interaction between conceptual and embodied knowledge would provide an even more useful framework to develop and test specific predictions.
Given that an embodied response to smiles (e.g., motor activation in the facial muscles) emerges around 500–1000 msec after observation of a smile (Dimberg & Petterson Reference Dimberg and Petterson2000; Dimberg et al. Reference Dimberg, Thunberg and Elmehed2000), it seems important to integrate more rapid cognitive processes in the SIMS model. First, before a smile is even observed, contextual information might play an essential role in determining which brain areas are activated when eye contact is established (e.g., OFC activation when talking to a loved one), and therefore, the type of smile that is expected. Second, the evaluative connotation of a smile and more specific conceptual information are activated rapidly at the moment that a smile is observed (within 120 msec, Ruys & Stapel Reference Ruys and Stapel2008b; see also Palermo & Rhodes Reference Palermo and Rhodes2007).
Considering that information processing occurs as efficiently as possible, it seems unlikely for embodied simulations to emerge for the purpose of recognition when associative knowledge structures rapidly enable the recognition of functional smiles. Although Niedenthal et al. acknowledge that contextually driven, rapid processing occurs, they also argue that in many circumstances embodied simulations allow observers to infer the correct meaning of ambiguous smiles, when conceptual or stereotypical knowledge would lead to errors of interpretation.
Two possible mechanisms may cause activation to occur of the different brain areas that allow people to distinguish between affiliative, enjoyment, and dominance smiles. The first possibility is that these three types of smiles have unique and distinguishable motor patterns. Assuming that an observer correctly simulates the observed smile, different patterns of brain activation lead to somatosensory activation that matches the observed smile, which subsequently facilitates the correct recognition of the smile's meaning. However, the possibility of unique motor patterns for these three types of smiles is not what Niedenthal et al. seem to advocate, and this idea lacks empirical support.
The second possibility is that rapidly activated contextual and conceptual information guides and constrains the embodied responses that emerge when observing a smile. Indeed, “happy” or “angry” conceptual information has been shown to lead to the activation of different facial muscles when observing identical faces with ambiguous facial expressions (Halberstadt et al. Reference Halberstadt, Winkielman, Niedenthal and Dalle2009). When a baby produces a smile with an unclear meaning, observers are unlikely to interpret the smile as a dominance smile, given that conceptual knowledge informs us that babies do not express dominance smiles. Niedenthal et al. might argue that in such a situation, where the exact meaning of the smile is ambiguous, conceptual knowledge of smiling babies will provide the possible meaning of the smile. It is exactly this interplay between conceptual and embodied information in determining the meaning of smiles that we propose deserves attention in the SIMS model.
As a further example, take the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) activation which occurs when perceiving smiles from one's own offspring (compared to seeing other people's smiling offspring). OFC activation may help to distinguish between our own and other people's offspring and to distinguish between affiliative and enjoyment smiles. For OFC activation to be able to distinguish between an affilitative and enjoyment smile from our own children, the OFC needs to be differentially activated when we see our own children smile different functional smiles. Although this is an empirical question, the current literature suggests the OFC is activated when seeing our offspring display any emotional reaction, such as smiling, but also crying (Noriuchi et al. Reference Noriuchi, Kikuchi and Senoo2008). We believe the SIMS model needs to incorporate the interaction between contextual conceptual information and embodied simulation to account for how people differentiate between the different meanings of functional smiles.
What is the function of the embodied simulation of an affiliative smile, when contextual conceptual information and rapid evaluative processing can often determine the meaning of such a smile much more efficiently? We believe that a SIMS model that goes beyond the passive observer can provide an answer by examining the role embodied simulations play in the social dynamics in which smiling behavior typically occurs. The simulation of smiles is not only a motor process that contributes to understanding, but also a process that serves a communicative function (Ruys & Stapel Reference Ruys and Stapel2008a) involving social cognitive mechanisms (Schilbach et al. Reference Schilbach, Eickhoff, Mojzisch and Vogeley2008).
As described by Niedenthal et al., social contextual variables can sometimes inhibit the simulation of an observed smile. Indeed, the automatic imitation or representation of the actions of others has been shown to be moderated by social information (e.g., Longo & Bertenthal Reference Longo and Bertenthal2009; Ruys & Aarts, in press; van Baaren et al. Reference van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter and van Knippenberg2003). Although speculative, OFC activation and rapid processing of the evaluative connotation of a smile may together determine whether social inhibition of the motor simulation occurs or not. By determining whether corresponding somatosensory experiences are produced on a dyadic level, embodied simulations can contribute to the meaningfulness of social interactions (e.g., Parkinson Reference Parkinson1996).
Understanding the meaning of smiles can be further determined by a range of bodily and cognitive factors, such as the observer's somatosensory experience at the time a smile is observed, or the observer's expectations and goals. We believe that understanding is an emergent process, which is guided and constrained by the dynamic interaction between embodied and conceptual information (see also, Mesquita et al. Reference Mesquita, Barrett and Smith2010). Specifying this interaction should be the focus of future theoretical and empirical work.