Neural correlates of personally familiar faces: Parents, partner and own faces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations of the neural correlates of face recognition have typically used old/new paradigms where subjects learn to recognize new faces or identify famous faces. Familiar faces, however, include one's own face, partner's and parents' faces. Using event-related fMRI, we examined the neural correlates of these personally familiar faces. Ten participants were presented with photographs of own, partner, parents, famous and unfamiliar faces and responded to a distinct target. Whole brain, two regions of interest (fusiform gyrus and cingulate gyrus), and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Compared with baseline, all familiar faces activated the fusiform gyrus; own faces also activated occipital regions and the precuneus; partner faces activated similar areas, but in addition, the parahippocampal gyrus, middle superior temporal gyri and middle frontal gyrus. Compared with unfamiliar faces, only personally familiar faces activated the cingulate gyrus and the extent of activation varied with face category. Partner faces also activated the insula, amygdala and thalamus. Regions of interest analyses and laterality indices showed anatomical distinctions of processing the personally familiar faces within the fusiform and cingulate gyri. Famous faces were right lateralized whereas personally familiar faces, particularly partner and own faces, elicited bilateral activations. Regression analyses show experiential predictors modulated with neural activity related to own and partner faces. Thus, personally familiar faces activated the core visual areas and extended frontal regions, related to semantic and person knowledge and the extent and areas of activation varied with face type.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it