MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968989606 · doi:10.1162/089892905774597254

Does Prosopagnosia Take the Eyes Out of Face Representations? Evidence for a Defect in Representing Diagnostic Facial Information following Brain Damage

2005· article· en· W1968989606 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuropsychologyCognitive psychologyFace (sociological concept)NeuroscienceFacial recognition systemVisual agnosiaAudiologyCognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most impressive disorders following brain damage to the ventral occipitotemporal cortex is prosopagnosia, or the inability to recognize faces. Although acquired prosopagnosia with preserved general visual and memory functions is rare, several cases have been described in the neuropsychological literature and studied at the functional and neural level over the last decades. Here we tested a brain-damaged patient (PS) presenting a deficit restricted to the category of faces to clarify the nature of the missing and preserved components of the face processing system when it is selectively damaged. Following learning to identify 10 neutral and happy faces through extensive training, we investigated patient PS's recognition of faces using Bubbles, a response classification technique that sampled facial information across the faces in different bandwidths of spatial frequencies [Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. E., Bubbles: A technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Research, 41, 2261-2271, 2001]. Although PS gradually used less information (i.e., the number of bubbles) to identify faces over testing, the total information required was much larger than for normal controls and decreased less steeply with practice. Most importantly, the facial information used to identify individual faces differed between PS and controls. Specifically, in marked contrast to controls, PS did not use the optimal eye information to identify familiar faces, but instead the lower part of the face, including the mouth and the external contours, as normal observers typically do when processing unfamiliar faces. Together, the findings reported here suggest that damage to the face processing system is characterized by an inability to use the information that is optimal to judge identity, focusing instead on suboptimal information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.293 · 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