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 OpenAlexaff
Roxane J. Itier

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations671
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207