The Great Facial Coding Debate: Real Insights or Fake Science?
Part of the Ad & Brand Insights Summit
On-Demand Webinar
Emotions matter. But can we reliably measure them with Facial Action Coding?
First, there was Darwin. Then there was Ekman. Then hundreds of researchers, neuroscientists and software engineers created tools to read the emotions implicit in our facial expressions.
Now, facial coding is a staple of the implicit research toolbox. Advertisers use it to optimise creative. Publishers use it to measure engagement with content.
Then, Lisa Feldman Barrett undermined it in How Emotions are Made. The UK’s Information Commissioner described it as half-baked pseudoscience. Finally, NIQ (formerly Nielsen) abandoned it altogether.
Who is right?
Is Facial Coding reliable, meaningful and predictive? Or is it delusional, hokum and fake science?
Join this debate to hear strong, evidence-based opinions from both sides of the argument.
Register
Sign up once for free access to all sessions at the Ad & Brand Insights Summit
Emotions matter. But can we reliably measure them with Facial Action Coding?
First, there was Darwin. Then there was Ekman. Then hundreds of researchers, neuroscientists and software engineers created tools to read the emotions implicit in our facial expressions.
Now, facial coding is a staple of the implicit research toolbox. Advertisers use it to optimise creative. Publishers use it to measure engagement with content.
Then, Lisa Feldman Barrett undermined it in How Emotions are Made. The UK’s Information Commissioner described it as half-baked pseudoscience. Finally, NIQ (formerly Nielsen) abandoned it altogether.
Who is right?
Is Facial Coding reliable, meaningful and predictive? Or is it delusional, hokum and fake science?
Join this debate to hear strong, evidence-based opinions from both sides of the argument.
Please login below or register for a free Insight Platforms account to watch videos.
Speakers
Aaron Reid
Ryan Howard
Company Profile
Malliavin
