MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155851653 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhg111

N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal Differences between Object and Face Processing Using ERPs

2003· article· en· W2155851653 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyObject (grammar)SegmentationFace (sociological concept)ElectrophysiologyFace perceptionCommunicationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceNeurosciencePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ERP component N170 is face-sensitive, yet its specificity for faces is controversial. We recorded ERPs while subjects viewed upright and inverted faces and seven object categories. Peak, topography and segmentation analyses were performed. N170 was earlier and larger to faces than to all objects. The classic increase in amplitude and latency was found for inverted faces on N170 but also on P1. Segmentation analyses revealed an extra map found only for faces, reflecting an extra cluster of activity compared to objects. While the N1 for objects seems to reflect the return to baseline from the P1, the N170 for faces reflects a supplement activity. The electrophysiological 'specificity' of faces could lie in the involvement of extra generators for face processing compared to objects and the N170 for faces seems qualitatively different from the N1 for objects. Object and face processing also differed as early as 120 ms.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.192 · 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