MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1630139710 · doi:10.1167/15.12.709

Representing Young and Older Adult Faces: Shared or Age-Specific Prototypes?

2015· article· en· W1630139710 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey A. Short, Valentina Proietti, Catherine J. Mondloch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityRedeemer University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyNorm (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently reported that the dimensions of face space are more well refined for young than older adult faces (Short & Mondloch, 2013). In the current study, we examined two alternative ways in which young and older adult faces might be represented in the context of a norm-based coding model. According to one model, adults possess a single age-generic norm that codes for both young and older faces, with face age represented as a dimension or set of dimensions within face space. Alternatively, there may be separable prototypes for young and older faces, with the representation of older faces being less well refined. In Experiment 1, 40 young adults participated in an opposing aftereffects experiment in which young and older faces were distorted in opposite directions (compressed versus expanded) during adaptation. Before and after adaptation, participants indicated which member of ±20% same-identity face pairs looked more normal; half of the pairs were older faces and half were young. Following adaptation, adults' normality preferences simultaneously shifted in opposite directions for the two face ages, p < .001, providing evidence for age-contingent opposing aftereffects. In Experiment 2, we sought to confirm these findings by examining the extent to which aftereffects transfer across face age categories. Pre- and post-adaptation trials were identical to those in Experiment 1; however, during adaptation, participants (n = 80) were adapted to either compressed or expanded faces from a single age category (young/old). Aftereffects, though significantly greater than chance for both face ages, were larger for the face age that matched adaptation than for the face age that did not, p < .01, indicating partial transfer of aftereffects across age categories. Collectively, these results suggest that adults process young and older adult faces with regard to separable prototypes with some shared coding dimensions. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicFace Recognition and Perception→French-language works237,207→