MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2039563048 · doi:10.1167/9.8.560

The discrimination of features, configuration and contour by patients with acquired prosopagnosia

2010· article· en· W2039563048 on OpenAlexaff
Alla Sekunova, Jason J.S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinPsychologyPerceptionAudiologyEye movementFusiform gyrusForeheadFace perceptionCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceCognitionAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of the face inversion effect suggest that the configuration of internal features may have special status for expert face-processing mechanisms. Experiments with prosopagnosic subjects have shown that lesions of the fusiform gyrus impair the discrimination of such configurations. However, whether this impairment is selective or part of a more pervasive difficulty with facial structure is unclear. We studied five patients with acquired prosopagnosia. We used an oddity paradigm in which they had to determine which of three simultaneously viewed faces differed from two others under unlimited viewing duration. Faces could differ in one of six ways, in external contour (forehead or chin), feature configuration (horizontal eye position or vertical mouth position), or feature shape (eye or mouth width). Processing load and attentional requirements were varied by using blocks in which either all 6 changes were possible, only one change was possible, or two changes were possible. Patients varied in their results. One patient with bilateral anterior temporal damage showed little perceptual deficit in any condition. A left-handed patient with right FFA/OFA damage had a selective deficit for eye position in the 1-change and 2-change conditions, but had general impairments in the 6-change condition. Another left-handed patient with bilateral anterior temporal damage and loss of the right FFA/OFA was impaired for eye shape and eye position in all conditions, with deficits for mouth shape under 2-change and 6-change conditions. A patient with bilateral occipitotemporal damage was impaired for all stimuli in all conditions. A similar pervasive deficit was surprisingly found in the last patient, with a small right amygdalohippocampectomy. We conclude that eye position may be particularly vulnerable to perceptual deficits in prosopagnosia, but that more general difficulties in perceiving other aspects of facial structure can occur, particularly under conditions stressing attention to the whole face.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 Vision→Same topicFace Recognition and Perception→French-language works237,207→