Preference for human eyes in human infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence supporting an early attraction to human faces, the nature of the face representation in neonates and its development during the first year after birth remain poorly understood. One suggestion is that an early preference for human faces reflects an attraction toward human eyes because human eyes are distinctive compared with other animals. In accord with this proposal, prior empirical studies have demonstrated the importance of the eye region in face processing in adults and infants. However, an attraction for the human eye has never been shown directly in infants. The current study aimed to investigate whether an attraction for human eyes would be present in newborns and older infants. With the use of a preferential looking time paradigm, newborns and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month-olds were simultaneously presented with a pair of nonhuman primate faces (chimpanzees and Barbary macaques) that differed only by the eyes, thereby pairing a face with original nonhuman primate eyes with the same face in which the eyes were replaced by human eyes. Our results revealed that no preference was observed in newborns, but a preference for nonhuman primate faces with human eyes emerged from 3months of age and remained stable thereafter. The findings are discussed in terms of how a preference for human eyes may emerge during the first few months after birth.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".