MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056755006 · doi:10.1080/13506280701434383

Do emotionally expressive faces automatically capture attention? Evidence from global–local interference

2008· article· en· W2056755006 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

VenueVisual Cognition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of WaterlooYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestalt psychologyPsychologyPerceptionStimulus (psychology)Face perceptionCognitive psychologyFace (sociological concept)Arc (geometry)Selective attentionOrientation (vector space)Emotional valenceCommunicationCognitionMathematicsGeometryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present experiments investigated whether perception of a global face gestalt automatically interferes with processing of facial features. Upward- and downward-curved arcs were grouped into triplets to resemble faces with positive or negative expressions. The arcs were presented either in a uniform grey colour to facilitate global face perception or in mixed colours where individual arcs were coloured red to reduce global face perception. Experiments 1 and 2 induced a local processing orientation by requiring participants to count individual arc features. Negative face displays yielded slower and less accurate arc counting performance than positive face displays, but only when all arcs were the same colour. In Experiment 3, a global processing orientation was induced by requiring participants to count the number of arc triplets. This time, negative face displays yielded slower reaction times, regardless of feature colour. These results show that interference from emotional face gestalts is not automatic but can be eliminated and may depend on both attentional control settings and “bottom-up” stimulus attributes. Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants to JDE and DS from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The first and last authors contributed equally to the present work. Notes 1It should be noted that the analyses yielded equivalent results even when the data of those 18 participants were not removed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.257 · 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