Developmental Trajectory of Face Processing Revealed by Integrative Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given their unique connectivity, a primary function of brain networks must be to transfer and integrate information. Therefore, the way in which information is integrated by individual nodes of the network may be an informative aspect of cognitive processing. Here we present a method inspired by telecommunications research that utilizes time-frequency fluctuations of neural activity to infer how information is integrated by individual nodes of the network. We use a queueing theoretical model to interpret empirical data in terms of information processing and integration. In particular, we demonstrate, in participants aged from 6 to 41 years, that the well-known face inversion phenomenon may be explained in terms of information integration. Our model suggests that inverted faces may be associated with shorter and more frequent neural integrative stages, indicating fractured processing and consistent with the notion that inverted faces are perceived by parts. Conversely, our model suggests that upright faces may be associated with a smaller number of sustained episodes of integration, indicating more involved processing, akin to holistic and configural processing. These differences in how upright and inverted faces are processed became more pronounced during development, indicating a gradual specialization for face perception. These effects were robustly expressed in the right fusiform gyrus (all groups), as well as right parahippocampal gyrus (children and adolescents only) and left inferior temporal cortex (adults only).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".