The Organization of Young Children's Face Space: Complete Transfer of Aftereffects from Own- to Other-Race Faces in 5-Year-Olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults (Jaquet et al., 2008) and 8-year-olds (Short et al., 2011) possess race-specific face prototypes; after viewing Caucasian and Chinese faces distorted in opposite directions, their attractiveness ratings shift in opposite directions (opposing aftereffects). We recently demonstrated that 5-year-old Caucasian children with minimal exposure to Chinese faces exhibit evidence for race-specific face prototypes; however, opposing aftereffects in 5-year-olds are driven largely by simple aftereffects for Caucasian faces (Short et al., 2011). These results may indicate that Caucasian 5-year-olds process Chinese faces as individual exemplars; alternatively 5-year-olds' emerging Chinese prototype may be weakly defined, resulting in their referencing both a Caucasian and a Chinese prototype when processing Chinese faces. We tested the latter hypothesis by measuring transfer of aftereffects in 5-year-old children. Adults show partial transfer of aftereffects from Caucasian to Chinese faces, indicating that they possess separable but not distinct representations of Caucasian and Chinese faces (Jaquet et al., 2008). If 5-year-olds reference a Caucasian prototype when encoding Chinese faces, they should show complete transfer of aftereffects. Five-year-old Caucasian children (n = 24) were adapted to compressed Caucasian faces; both before and after adaptation, they judged the attractiveness of distorted Caucasian and Chinese faces. Aftereffects were no larger for Caucasian faces than for Chinese faces, p > .30. This complete transfer of aftereffects suggests that in 5-year-olds, the Caucasian and Chinese prototypes are largely overlapping and that Chinese faces are not processed as individual exemplars. In a follow-up study, we are examining whether Caucasian 5-year-olds show simple aftereffects for Chinese faces and the extent to which these aftereffects generalize to Caucasian faces. This work provides novel insights into the organization of young children's face space and the potential role of experience in the development of prototype(s) for other-race faces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".