Characterizing the Spatio-temporal Dynamics of the Neural Events Occurring prior to and up to Overt Recognition of Famous Faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is generally acknowledged that familiar face recognition is fast, mandatory, and proceeds outside conscious control, it is still unclear whether processes leading to familiar face recognition occur in a linear (i.e., gradual) or a nonlinear (i.e., all-or-none) manner. To test these two alternative accounts, we recorded scalp ERPs while participants indicated whether they recognize as familiar the faces of famous and unfamiliar persons gradually revealed in a descending sequence of frames, from the noisier to the least noisy. This presentation procedure allowed us to characterize the changes in scalp ERP responses occurring prior to and up to overt recognition. Our main finding is that gradual and all-or-none processes are possibly involved during overt recognition of familiar faces. Although the N170 and the N250 face-sensitive responses displayed an abrupt activity change at the moment of overt recognition of famous faces, later ERPs encompassing the N400 and late positive component exhibited an incremental increase in amplitude as the point of recognition approached. In addition, famous faces that were not overtly recognized at one trial before recognition elicited larger ERP potentials than unfamiliar faces, probably reflecting a covert recognition process. Overall, these findings present evidence that recognition of familiar faces implicates spatio-temporally complex neural processes exhibiting differential pattern activity changes as a function of recognition state.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".