Jen or Sue? The influence of facial expressions on identity aftereffects in 8-year-old children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested that adults' perception of facial identity and expression are not independent of one another. Facial expression aftereffects are dependent on facial identity in both adults (Fox & Barton, 2007) and children (Vida & Mondloch, 2009). In contrast, identity aftereffects in adult participants are independent of variation in facial expression (Fox et al., 2008), suggesting that adults' representation of facial identity is independent of expression. We examined whether identity aftereffects in 8-year-olds are modulated by changes in facial expression. In each of two experiments, children (n = 30) were shown an adapting face followed by a morphed blend between two identities. Adaptation significantly biased children's perception of the test identity away from the adapting identity, an effect that was independent of whether the morphed and adapting identities had the same or different emotional expressions. This indicates that, like adults, 8-year-olds process facial identity independent of expression. However, to be included in the above adaptation analyses, children were required to correctly categorize two facial identities at 100% identity strength and then at 80 and 90% identity strength across variations in expression. Approximately 33% of children were unable to pass training, despite the use of more distinctive faces and a more elaborate training procedure in Experiment 2. This suggests that there are individual differences in the extent to which 8-year-olds process identity independently of expression. In Experiment 3, we investigated these individual differences using a Garner interference task. Children categorized facial identities when expression was held constant (control trials) and when expression varied across trials (orthogonal trials). To date, data (n = 9) indicate that, unlike adults (Baudouin et al., 2008), 8-year-olds' reaction times are longer on orthogonal than control trials. Children's ability to process identity may be transitioning to an adult-like pattern at 8 years of age.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".