What is Meant by Impaired Configural Processing in Acquired Prosopagnosia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apperceptive prosopagnosia is supposedly characterised by impaired configural processing, which could refer to either perception of spatial structure or holistic mechanisms. Ten prosopagnosic patients were tested with (i) dot patterns, to determine if manipulations of complexity, size, orientation, or the regularity of global structure generated effects consistent with the holistic hypothesis; and (ii) hierarchical letters, to probe for a global 'whole-object' processing deficit. With dot patterns (experiment 1) patients were impaired even for simple two-dot stimuli, but did better with more complex patterns, when size or orientation varied, or with a regular global structure. In experiment 2, they demonstrated normal latency effects of global-level processing. Apperceptive prosopagnosia, including that from lesions encompassing the right fusiform gyrus, is thus associated with a 'configural deficit' that impairs perception of spatial structure, not just for faces but also for non-facial patterns. While it cannot be concluded that holistic processing is entirely normal in these subjects, their performance shows significant modulation by whole-object structure, indicating that some whole-object processing is occurring in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".