Effects of aging on the horizontal selectivity of behavioural and ERP measures of face identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal orientations comprise the primary diagnostic structure for face perception (Dakin & Watt, J Vis 2009), and young adult observers’ ability to selectively use horizontal structure more than vertical structure (horizontal tuning) predicts both face identification accuracy and the face inversion effect magnitude (Pachai et al., Front Psychol 2013). Here, we ask if the age-related decline of face identification accuracy (Konar et al., Vis Res 2013) is associated with age-related changes in horizontal tuning. Because the N170 ERP component is delayed and smaller in response to faces lacking horizontal structure (Hashemi et al., VSS 2014), we also examined whether age-related behavioural changes in horizontal tuning were associated with age-related changes in both the N170 and the N250. We measured identification accuracy and ERPs in younger (M=22±3.8 years) and older (M=73±7.3 years) adults with a 6-AFC face identification task. Base stimuli were generated using a ±45 deg orientation filter centered on either the horizontal or vertical orientation, with additional stimuli generated by increasing orientation bandwidth by ±9 deg steps, totalling 10 orientation-filtered conditions plus 1 unfiltered condition that included all orientations. In younger observers, adding horizontal structure improved accuracy significantly more than adding vertical structure. However, in older adults, the addition of horizontal and vertical structure produced similar, small increases in accuracy. Thus, older adults exhibited less horizontal selectivity than younger adults. Interestingly, orientation filtering affected the N170 similarly in the two age groups, but the N250 was modulated by orientation filtering only in younger adults,consistent with the notion that the two ERP components represent different stages of face processing.The decreased behavioural horizontal tuning seen with age is reflected in the N250’s decreased sensitivity to orientation filtering, providing behavioural and electrophysiological support for the idea that face identification relies on effective use of horizontally oriented structure. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".