No quantitative differences in face memory with regard to different viewpoints and viewpoint changes between children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to recognize faces under varying contexts and conditions is essential for our social perception. One factor varying strongly in different situations is the viewpoint a face is presented in. The question has been raised if there are quantitative differences in face processing with regard to different viewpoints or viewpoint changes between children and adults. Here, we investigated face memory performance in school-aged children and adults in two experiments: Experiment 1 addressed the effects of different viewpoints on face memory performance in five- to ten-year-old children and adults (N = 110). In a within-group design three versions of a 2AFC-task were completed by each participant, comprising pictures of faces in either front, three-quarter or profile views. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of viewpoint changes on face memory performance in six- to ten-year-old children and adults (N = 180). Three main viewpoint changes between study and test phase were investigated (45°_front: front/three-quarter or three-quarter/front; 45°_profile: three-quarter/profile or profile/three-quarter; 90°:, front/profile or profile/front). A between-group design was applied, in which each participant completed one direction of each viewpoint change. Data of experiment 1 revealed a main effect of age group and a main effect of viewpoint – with frontal and three-quarter views being remembered more often than profile views. Experiment 2 revealed a main effect of age group and a main effect of viewpoint change – the difficulty level rising from 45°_front to 45°_profil to 90°. The lack of a viewpoint x age group interaction (Experiment1) and the lack of a viewpoint change x age group interaction (Experiment 2) indicate similar viewpoint and viewpoint change effects across age groups. Our results support the notion that there are no quantitative differences in face processing with regard to different viewpoints and viewpoint changes in children and adults. 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".