Sex, handedness and sexual orientation as predictors of face perception ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural studies consistently demonstrate a female advantage for face processing. Evoked potentials have also shown gender effects with men displaying more right-lateralized activation for faces while women appear functionally bilateral (Proverbio, 2006). Together, these results suggest gender differences in face processing at a cortical level. Similar hemispheric asymmetry in men is documented for cognitive tasks such as mental rotation. However, handedness mediates this trend. Imaging research demonstrates increased left-hemisphere activation for mental rotation in left-handed (LH) men, indicating less hemispheric asymmetry than right handed (RH) men (Shimoda, 2007). Structural differences attributable to handedness are also evident in the corpus callosum. Research has shown that RH homosexual men display structural differences in the corpus callosum similar to those of LH heterosexual men (Witelson, 2007). Furthermore, homosexuality is positively correlated with non-right-handedness in both men and women (Lalumière, 2000). RH homosexual men show female-typical performance patterns on many sexually dimorphic cognitive tasks (Rahman, 2003). This suggests less functional asymmetry in homosexual men regardless of handedness. Findings regarding handedness and sexual orientation in women, however, are less consistent. We explored the implications of these trends for face processing by comparing performances of LH and RH heterosexuals to RH homosexual men and women on a battery of face perception tasks (old-new recognition, configural, featural and composite face processing). Results demonstrate a dissociation in performance for heterosexual men and women as a function of handedness— RH women were better than RH men whereas LH men outperform LH women. Moreover, homosexual men outperform RH heterosexual men and were therefore comparable to heterosexual LH men and RH women. These results show that sex, handedness and sexual orientation play a role in face perception ability. Further, LH men and homosexual men's similar performance may reflect underlying structural similarities involved in face processing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".