Learning unfamiliar faces in infants: The advantage of the regular sequence presentation and the three-quarter view superiority
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
We investigated the effect of the regular sequence of different views and the three-quarter view effect on the learning of unfamiliar faces by infants. 3–8-month-old infants were familiarized with unfamiliar female faces in either the regular condition (presenting 11 different face views from the frontal view to the left-side profile view in regular order) or the random condition (presenting the same 11 different face views in random order). Following the familiarization, infants were tested with a pair of a familiarized and a novel female face either in a three-quarter (Experiment 1) or in a profile view (Experiment 2). Results showed that only 6–8-month-old infants could identify a familiarized face in the regular condition when they were tested in three-quarter views. In contrast, 6–8-month-old infants showed no significant novelty preference in profile views. The results suggest that the regular sequence of different face views promotes the learning of unfamiliar faces by infants over 6 months old. Moreover, our findings imply that the three-quarter view effect appears in infants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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