Perceptual reversal patterns in individuals with Asperger Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When viewing ambiguous figures, individuals can exert selective attentional control over their perceptual reversals (e.g., Strüber & Stadler, 1999). In the current study, we replicated this finding and also found that ambiguous figures containing faces are processed quite differently from those containing objects. Viewers' were able to divide their attention equally between the two face interpretations of Boring's young girl-old woman, and showed a face preference when viewing Rubin's vase-face. When instructed to alternate quickly between competing interpretations, their reversal rates were much quicker for these two figures than for figures containing only objects (Maltese cross, Necker cube), a finding that might reflect greater use of a holistic processing strategy when viewing figures involving faces. This was examined by comparing reversal behaviours for upright and inverted versions of Rubin's vase-face and looking for inversion effects (i.e., alterations in reversal behaviours associated with inversion). Viewers spent more time perceiving the face than the vase interpretation with upright but not inverted stimuli, and made faster reversals with upright than inverted displays. These findings suggest that face inversion influences how we attend to faces, in addition to how we perceive and process them. Describing the perceptual reversal patterns of individuals in the general population allowed us to draw comparisons to behaviours exhibited by individuals with Asperger Syndrome (AS). The group data suggested that these individuals were less affected than neurotypical controls by figure type or stimulus inversion. Examination of individual scores, moreover, revealed that the majority of participants with AS showed atypical reversal patterns, particularly with ambiguous figures containing faces. The majority also showed an atypical rather than a diminished or absent inversion effect. Together, our results show that ambiguous figures can be a valuable tool for examining face processing mechanisms in the general population and other distinct groups of individuals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".