Perceived head orientation is affected by the dynamic rotation of neighboring faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head rotation is a cue for perceived gaze direction in face perception. This work examined how perceived head orientation is influenced by the dynamic rotation of neighboring faces. Within each trial, two identical contextual faces were presented 3.2° to the left and right of fixation for 240ms. Halfway through the presentation of contextual faces, a static target face appeared briefly (27ms) at fixation. Observers reported whether the target face was rotated further to the left or right than the contextual faces. Target face orientation was varied from trial to trial, so that the point of subjective equality (PSE) for head orientation between target and contextual faces could be measured. Three conditions were interleaved: contextual faces were either dynamic (rotating from 4 to 16° or 16 to 4°) or static at a head rotation of 10°. All three conditions were similar during target presentation, in that dynamic contextual faces were oriented at 10° during the 27ms target exposure. The PSE (n=4) for the static condition was 9.9° (±1.1°) but for rotating conditions shifted to 15.1° (±2.0°) and to 3.0° (±1.0°) for the 4–16° and 16-4° directions, respectively. Results suggest that perceived head orientation is influenced by that of neighboring faces, and that when contextual faces undergo a dynamic rotation, the flashed face appears to lag behind. This demonstrates that the flash-lag effect applies to complex constructs and motions, such as head rotation. Implications for motion mechanisms and perceived gaze direction are addressed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".