Talk:Microexpression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does it mean when someone rolls their eyes?

check out Gestures entry [[1]]

[edit] Botox Section??

The Botox information is interesting, but fills the majority of the entry, which is not about Botox. It could use more integration/justification and balance by other information. WHY does it matter that botox can do this? Is it used to hide lies, or has it been used in research into microexpressions? The only connection I've found in searches are silly comments in threads discussing the research and a question/answer pair in an interview with the researcher. I'll try to clear this up when I can.Bigdoglover

It is also a vast oversimplification of the neurology to the point of being misleading. Different neural pathways are not linked to different motor nerves but will lead (in some way we don't understand) to different patterns of motor nerve excitation. The black box of how different neural pathways might lead to different motor patterns is a huge gap in our understanding, as is the understanding of what, exactly, different neural pathways are. What is probably going on in Botox is that both the microexpressions resulting from "truth-telling" and the microexpressions resulting from "fiction-telling" are distorted ("blurred" in effect) due to the lack of sufficient activation of certain muscles, thus inhibiting the ability of another person to accurately decipher them. In either case, our knowledge on this subject is conjectural at best. I would recommend removing the Botox section altogether, as it is both misleading and unnecessary. dwinetsk

Thanks for the info dwinetsk, I have used it to clarify the language in this section. Could you provide the sources for your info and add them to the article? Dr.Crawboney 11:54, 31 Octover 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "microsecond to microsecond"??

The statement "American psychologist John Gottman began video-recording living relationships, microsecond to microsecond, to study how couples interact." can't possibly be correct.

A microsecond is a millionth of a second. Video is typically 24 (or is it 30?) frames per second, or if you prefer, on the order of 30,000 - 40,000 microseconds per frame. Even if one could actually capture a million frames per second, it is highly unlikely that this would be useful. More likely, the image would not change at all for thousands of frames (milliseconds) at a time. Poring through a million frames in order to parse a second of interaction also seems incredibly time-consuming.

Anyway, it's pretty clear this is just a typo. The relevant question is, what time scale was Gottman actually using? -Dmh 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)