Six-Month-Old Infants' Perception of the Hollow Face Illusion: Evidence for a General Convexity Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrow, Granrud, Mathison, and Yonas (2011, Perception, 40, 1376-1383) found evidence that 6-month-old infants perceive the hollow face illusion. In the present study we asked whether 6-month-old infants perceive illusory depth reversal for a nonface object and whether infants' perception of the hollow face illusion is affected by mask orientation inversion. In experiment 1 infants viewed a concave bowl, and their reaches were recorded under monocular and binocular viewing conditions. Infants reached to the bowl as if it were convex significantly more often in the monocular than in the binocular viewing condition. These results suggest that infants perceive illusory depth reversal with a nonface stimulus and that the infant visual system has a bias to perceive objects as convex. Infants in experiment 2 viewed a concave face-like mask in upright and inverted orientations. Infants reached to the display as if it were convex more in the monocular than in the binocular condition; however, mask orientation had no effect on reaching. Previous findings that adults' perception of the hollow face illusion is affected by mask orientation inversion have been interpreted as evidence of stored-knowledge influences on perception. However, we found no evidence of such influences in infants, suggesting that their perception of this illusion may not be affected by stored knowledge, and that perceived depth reversal is not face-specific in infants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".