MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119048912 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1406

Processing the Trees and the Forest during Initial Stages of Face Perception: Electrophysiological Evidence

2006· article· en· W2119048912 on OpenAlexaff
Shlomo Bentin, Yulia Golland, Anastasia V. Flevaris, Lynn C. Robertson, Morris Moscovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyElectrophysiologyPerceptionFace (sociological concept)ElectroencephalographyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCommunicationCognitive scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although configural processing is considered a hallmark of normal face perception in humans, there is ample evidence that processing face components also contributes to face recognition and identification. Indeed, most contemporary models posit a dual-code view in which face identification relies on the analysis of individual face components as well as the spatial relations between them. We explored the interplay between processing face configurations and inner face components by recording the N170, an event-related potential component that manifests early detection of faces. In contrast to a robust N170 effect elicited by line-drawn schematic faces compared to line-drawn schematic objects, no N170 effect was found if a pair of small objects substituted for the eyes in schematic faces. However, if a pair of two miniaturized faces substituted for the eyes, the N170 effect was restored. Additional experiments ruled out an explanation on the basis of miniaturized faces attracting attention independent of their location in a face-like configuration and show that global and local face characteristics compete for processing resources when in conflict. The results are discussed as they relate to normal and abnormal face processing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations90
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207