Search

Recognising conspecifics’ emotional expressions is important for nonhuman primates to navigate their physical and social environment. We address two possible mechanisms underlying emotion recognition: emotional contagion, the automatic matching of the observer’s emotions to the emotional state of the observed individual, and cognitive empathy, the ability to understand the meaning and cause of emotional expressions while maintaining a distinction between own and others’ emotions. We review experimental research in nonhuman primates to gain insight into the evolution of emotion recognition. Importantly, we focus on how emotional contagion and cognitive empathy can be studied experimentally. Evidence for aspects of cognitive empathy in different nonhuman primate lineages suggests that a wider range of primates than commonly assumed can infer emotional meaning from emotional expressions. Possibly, analogous rather than homologous evolution underlies emotion recognition. However, conclusions regarding its exact evolutionary course require more research in different modalities and species.

Current developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) led to a resurgence of Explainable AI (XAI). New methods are being researched to obtain information from AI systems in order to generate explanations for their output. However, there is an overall lack of valid and reliable evaluations of the effects on users' experience of, and behavior in response to explanations. New XAI methods are often based on an intuitive notion what an effective explanation should be. Rule- and example-based contrastive explanations are two exemplary explanation styles. In this study we evaluate the effects of these two explanation styles on system understanding, persuasive power and task performance in the context of decision support in diabetes self-management. Furthermore, we provide three sets of recommendations based on our experience designing this evaluation to help improve future evaluations. Our results show that rule-based explanations have a small positive effect on system understanding, whereas both rule- and example-based explanations seem to persuade users in following the advice even when incorrect. Neither explanation improves task performance compared to no explanation. This can be explained by the fact that both explanation styles only provide details relevant for a single decision, not the underlying rational or causality. These results show the importance of user evaluations in assessing the current assumptions and intuitions on effective explanations.