Age-related effects on selective processing of horizontal structure in whole-face context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Younger observers use horizontal structure in the eyes/eyebrows when identifying faces (Pachai et al, VSS 2013), and the extent to which they do so is correlated with identification performance (Pachai et al., Front Psychol 2013). However, it is unknown whether the age-related decline in face identification accuracy is related to a reduced ability to utilize horizontal structure. Obermeyer et al. (Front Aging Neurosci 2012) showed poorer discrimination of horizontally filtered faces in older relative to younger adults, suggesting that older observers use diagnostic horizontal information less efficiently when the target band is specified precisely. It remains unclear, however, if there are age-related differences in the extraction of horizontal structure from the more ecologically valid case of intact faces. We examined this issue using a 6AFC identification paradigm in which the target face was filtered on a given trial to retain information in only the horizontal, vertical, or oblique orientation bands (bandwidth = 45 degrees). Across two groups, these stimuli were presented alone (face context absent) or combined with orthogonal facial structure obtained by averaging the six possible faces (face context present). For both groups, only a specific orientation band was diagnostic on a given trial, but the context present group had to extract this information from a whole face without knowing which orientation band was informative. Context affected the selective use of horizontal structure differently in the two age groups. Specifically, adding context caused young observers to be more reliant on horizontal structure, whereas it caused older observers to be less reliant on horizontal structure. This result suggests that the age-related deterioration in face identification is driven largely by decreased selective extraction of diagnostic information from intact stimuli, and is consistent with previous results suggesting that seniors rely more on holistic information in faces (Konar et al., Vis Res, 2013). Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".