MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Receptive Fields for Flexible Face Categorizations

2004· article· en· W2115609306 on OpenAlexaff
Marie L. Smith, Frédéric Gosselin, Philippe G. Schyns

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationPsychologyCognitive psychologyFace (sociological concept)Task (project management)Face perceptionInformation processingCommunicationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligencePerceptionComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract-Examining the receptive fields of brain signals can elucidate how information impinging on the former modulates the latter. We applied this time-honored approach in early vision to the higher-level brain processes underlying face categorizations. Electroencephalograms in response to face-information samples were recorded while observers resolved two different categorizations (gender, expressive or not). Using a method with low bias and low variance, we compared, in a common space of information states, the information determining behavior (accuracy and reaction time) with the information that modulates emergent brain signals associated with early face encoding and later category decision. Our results provide a time line for face processing in which selective attention to diagnostic information for categorizing stimuli (the eyes and their second-order relationships in gender categorization; the mouth in expressive-or-not categorization) correlates with late electrophysiological (P300) activity, whereas early face-sensitive occipito-temporal (N170) activity is mainly driven by the contralateral eye, irrespective of the categorization task.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207