Size determines whether specialized expert processes are engaged for recognition of faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many influential models of face recognition postulate specialized expert processes that are engaged when viewing upright, own-race faces, as opposed to a general-purpose recognition route used for nonface objects and inverted or other-race faces. In contrast, others have argued that empirical differences do not stem from qualitatively distinct processing. We offer a potential resolution to this ongoing controversy. We hypothesize that faces engage specialized processes at large sizes only. To test this, we measured recognition efficiencies for a wide range of sizes. Upright face recognition efficiency increased with size. This was not due to better visibility of basic image features at large sizes. We ensured this by calculating efficiency relative to a specialized ideal observer unique to each individual that incorporated size-related changes in visibility and by measuring inverted efficiencies across the same range of face sizes. Inverted face recognition efficiencies did not change with size. A qualitative face inversion effect, defined as the ratio of relative upright and inverted efficiencies, showed a complete lack of inversion effects for small sizes up to 6°. In contrast, significant face inversion effects were found for all larger sizes. Size effects may stem from predominance of larger faces in the overall exposure to faces, which occur at closer viewing distances typical of social interaction. Our results offer a potential explanation for the contradictory findings in the literature regarding the special status of faces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".