Effects of size, fixation location, and inversion on face identification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One possible explanation for the face inversion effect (FIE) is that inversion swaps the eye and mouth locations relative to fixation, and attention typically is directed to the top of a stimulus for faces. As the eye region is the most informative for face discrimination, automatically attending to the upper-half of a face would cause observers to use less diagnostic regions for inverted faces. Consistent with this hypothesis, cueing attention to the eyes modulates the FIE measured both behaviourally (Hills et al., JEP:HPP 2011) and with EEG (de Lissa et al., Neuropsychologia 2014). However, past studies used old/new recognition or gender discrimination tasks rather than identification tasks, and they did not consider the effects of stimulus size. The size manipulation is interesting in light of a recent suggestion that specialized face processing is engaged only by large stimuli (Yang et al., J Vis 2014). To address these issues, we measured accuracy and ERPs in a 6-AFC identification task that varied fixation location (center, left eye, right eye, mouth), orientation (upright or inverted), and face width (3.2 or 8.1 deg). Behavioural results showed significant main effects of: i) face size (higher accuracy for large faces), ii) fixation location (lower accuracy for mouth fixations), and iii) orientation (lower accuracy for inverted faces). However, we observed no fixation x orientation interaction, thus fixation location did not modulate the FIE. The size x orientation interaction also was not significant, which is inconsistent with the suggestion that small and large faces differentially recruit face-specific mechanisms. Finally, we found a significant N170 latency FIE that, consistent with previous studies, was larger with eye fixations. Together, these results clarify the roles of size and fixation in identification tasks, and further implicate the eyes in both behavioural and electrophysiological markers of face processing. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it