MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073130586 · doi:10.1167/13.9.171

The Steady-State Visual Evoked Potential (SSVEP) response is more sensitive to face identity changes than bird identity changes

2013· article· en· W2073130586 on OpenAlexaff
B. Xu, James W. Tanaka, B. Rossion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)ElectroencephalographyPsychologyRapid serial visual presentationEvoked potentialLuminancePhotic StimulationVisual perceptionVisual evoked potentialsAudiologyCommunicationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceCognitionComputer sciencePerceptionCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) is a periodic EEG response elicited by periodic visual stimulation (Regan, 1966). The amplitude of SSVEP is reduced in response to repetitions of the same face compared to presentations of different faces (e.g., Rossion et al., 2012). Although the SSVEP technique is an ideal tool to study the sensitivity to face discrimination, it is unknown whether this effect is specific to faces or can be generalized to non-face objects. Here we tested the SSVEP response to face and bird stimuli at 4 Hz of stimulation frequency in 11 bird novices. Face and bird stimuli were gray-scaled and equated for luminance. Bird stimuli were selected from exemplars from different species. All trials started with the presentation of an identical stimulus for 15 seconds followed by 75 seconds of presentation in which the identity of the stimuli either remained the same or changed at every cycle. The stimuli were presented in varying sizes to control for adaptation to low-level properties. Fourier Transform was applied to EEG recordings (32 channels) from the 18th to 67th second of presentation (frequency resolution: 0.02 Hz). Replicating previous observations, responses at both the fundamental frequency (4 Hz) and the second harmonics (8 Hz) were larger for different faces than the same face condition at occipito-temporal electrode sites. However, there was no difference at 4 Hz for bird stimuli, and only a weak effect at the second harmonics (8 Hz). This effect is not attributable to image similarity because physical differences between bird stimuli were larger than face stimuli. These results indicate that the SSVEP is sensitive to the identity differences in faces, but not to identity differences in non-face objects, such as birds. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207