MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981952627 · doi:10.1167/8.6.1139

Sex, handedness and sexual orientation as predictors of face perception ability

2010· article· en· W1981952627 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Brewster, Roxana A. Dobrin, Caitlin Mullin, Jennifer K. E. Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual orientationCorpus callosumMental rotationPerceptionCognitionFace perceptionLateralization of brain functionDevelopmental psychologySexual dimorphismDissociation (chemistry)AudiologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207