MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052175166 · doi:10.1167/9.8.496

Mixed emotions: Holistic and analytic perception of facial expressions

2010· article· en· W2052175166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyFacial expressionCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that recognition of facial identity relies more on Holistic Processing (HP) of the entire face than analytic processing of its constituent parts. HP of faces has been measured in experiments where participants selectively attend to the top or bottom half of faces in a same-different judgment task and either the alignment of face halves or the congruency of information across face halves are manipulated (e.g., the composite face effect, Young, Hellawell, & Hay, 1987). In contrast to identity, it is unclear whether the identification of facial expressions is holistic or analytic, as studies to date have produced conflicting results. In part this may be due to a lack of appropriate baseline measures. To measure processing of emotional expressions, we created two sets of composite faces in which top and bottom face halves displayed incongruent (e.g., angry top/happy bottom) or congruent (e.g., happy top/happy bottom) expressions and two baseline sets where expression halves were paired with halves of neutral expression, or presented in isolation. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to report the expression in the cued half of the face and ignore information in the uncued half. Relative to baseline conditions, it was found that in an incongruent expression, conflicting information in the uncued half interfered with speed and accuracy of identifying the cued half. However, in a congruent face, the uncued portion had no effect on speed and accuracy. A manipulation of the exposure duration in Experiment 2 revealed that while stimuli were equivalently identified at brief exposures, this pattern of holistic interference without facilitation emerged by 60 ms. Collectively, the results suggest that holistic face processes are engaged given both a) conflicting or ambiguous facial expression information and b) a minimum amount of processing. In contrast, unambiguous or briefly viewed facial expressions are processed analytically.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.278 · 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