Face Recognition Memory and Configural Processing: A Developmental ERP Study using Upright, Inverted, and Contrast-Reversed Faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of configural changes on faces were investigated in children to determine their role in encoding and recognition processes. Upright, inverted, and contrast-reversed unfamiliar faces were presented in blocks in which one-third of the pictures repeated immediately or after one intervening face. Subjects (8-16 years) responded to repeated faces; event-related potentials were recorded throughout the procedure. Recognition improved steadily with age and all components studied showed age effects reflecting differing maturation processes occurring until adulthood. All children were affected by inversion and contrast-reversal, and face-type effects were seen on latencies and amplitudes of early components (P1 and N170), as well as on later frontal amplitudes. The "old-new" repetition effects (larger amplitude for repeated stimuli) were found at frontal sites and were similar across age groups and face types, suggesting a general working memory system comparably involved in all age groups. These data demonstrate that (1) there is quantitative development in face processing, (2) both face encoding and recognition improve with age, but (3) only encoding is affected by configural changes. The data also suggest a gradual tuning of face processing towards the upright orientation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".