Individual differences in face recognition abilities linked to variations in diagnostic facial information.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face recognition is a complex task on perceptual and cognitive levels. Indeed, significant differences in face recognition abilities exist within the normal population (Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006), and these differences could be accounted for by qualitative and quantitative variations in the perceptual mechanisms associated with face identification. Forty-five participants (18 men; Mage=21.96; SD=3.13) were recruited for this study. The first task consisted of a 1000 trials 2AFC match-to-sample design. Using Bubbles (Gosselin & Schyns, 2001) we investigated whether visual strategies in face recognition differ within a normal population. Bubblized versions of faces were created by sampling facial information at random spatial locations and at five non-overlapping spatial frequency bands. Accuracy was maintained at 75% by adjusting the number of bubbles on a trial-by-trial basis using QUEST (Watson & Pelli, 1983); thus, the number of bubbles reflected the relative ability of the participants. The second task completed by our participants was the Cambridge Face Memory Test + (CFMT+; Russell, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2009), a measure of face recognition ability. Classification images showing the information in the stimuli that correlated with accuracy were constructed by performing a multiple linear regression on the bubbles locations and accuracy. We constructed one (n=17) for the participants who obtained the best scores on the CFMT+, and one for those (n=13) who obtained the worst scores (0.5 SD above and below the mean, respectively; M=67.54; SD=12.48). A pixel test was applied to each classification image to determine its statistical significance (Zcrit=3.36, p<0.05; corrected for multiple comparisons). Our results indicate that the most skillful participants exclusively use the eye region when identifying faces, whereas the least skillful participants use information stemming from both the region of the eyes and the mouth. These results suggest that differences in perceptual mechanisms of face recognition also exist within the normal population. 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".