MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131731485 · doi:10.1167/10.12.20

Critical frequencies in the perception of letters, faces, and novel shapes: Evidence for limited scale invariance for faces

2010· article· en· W2131731485 on OpenAlexafffund
İpek Oruç, Jason J.S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Universality (dynamical systems)PerceptionPsychologyFace perceptionIntuitionCognitive psychologyInvariant (physics)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionCommunicationPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysicsCognitive scienceObject (grammar)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the common intuition that object recognition processes should be relatively scale invariant, a number of studies show that this is not the case. Using a critical-band masking paradigm, we examined the pattern of scale dependence of diagnostic spatial frequencies across a range of stimuli that varied in participants' prior experience and the 'ecological significance' of the stimuli, by which we mean the degree of universality and recency of the development of the stimulus in human culture, letters being an example of a culturally arbitrary stimulus and faces a universal one. We found scale dependence for letters, mirror-image letters, and novel shapes, consistent with prior results, as well as for inverted faces. However, upright faces showed a relatively scale-invariant pattern especially for face sizes that corresponded to those encountered in typical social interactions. This suggests an important difference between the processing of faces and other objects that may reflect their unique status as stimuli.

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 score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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