MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963560809 · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.975

Face Recognition Is Affected by Similarity in Spatial Frequency Range to a Greater Degree Than Within-Category Object Recognition.

2004· article· en· W1963560809 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles A. Collin, Chang Hong Liu, Nikolaus F. Troje, Patricia A. McMullen, Avi Chaudhuri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFacial recognition systemCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFace (sociological concept)Matching (statistics)Similarity (geometry)Vulnerability (computing)Spatial frequencyComputer visionComputer scienceIdentification (biology)3D single-object recognitionPsychologyMathematicsImage (mathematics)StatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested that face identification is more sensitive to variations in spatial frequency content than object recognition, but none have compared how sensitive the 2 processes are to variations in spatial frequency overlap (SFO). The authors tested face and object matching accuracy under varying SFO conditions. Their results showed that object recognition was more robust to SFO variations than face recognition and that the vulnerability of faces was not due to reliance on configural processing. They suggest that variations in sensitivity to SFO help explain the vulnerability of face recognition to changes in image format and the lack of a middle-frequency advantage in object recognition.

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)0.006
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
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.354
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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207