Implicit learning of geometric eigenfaces: evidence for the formation of face space dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The face space hypothesis suggests that individual faces are encoded as points in a multidimensional space, whose dimensions are formed based on experience with faces (Valentine, 1991). Approaches based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) have been widely used to extract dimensional information from faces in developing automated face recognition algorithms (Turk & Pentland, 1991) and in recent investigation of the psychological properties of the face space dimensions (Said & Todorov, 2011). However, there has not been any evidence showing that humans learn dimensional information from experience with faces in a way similar to PCA. In the current study, we set up a multidimensional stimulus space with synthetic faces that capture the major shape information in real faces. Adult participants (N = 10) studied a set of 16 synthetic faces sampled from this multidimensional stimulus space, and subsequently performed an old/new face recognition task with the distracter faces being 16 faces from an non-overlapping region of this stimulus space relative to the 16 studied faces. In addition, participants also judged 3 faces representing the average and two directions of the first principal component (the eigenfaces) of the studied faces. Participants learned the target faces well, as demonstrated by a high hit rate (.74) and a low false alarm rate (.12). However, they mistakenly reported that they had previously seen the average face and the eigenfaces of the studied faces and did so at a rate (.98, .95, .97 for the average face and two eigenfaces, respectively) even higher than their rate of correct reports for the learned faces (ps <.01). The findings suggest that human adults implicitly learn the average and several principal components from experience with faces, offering direct evidence for the formation of face space dimensions. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".