Internal and External Features of the Face Are Represented Holistically in Face-Selective Regions of Visual Cortex
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception and recognition of familiar faces depends critically on an analysis of the internal features of the face (eyes, nose, mouth). We therefore contrasted how information about the internal and external (hair, chin, face outline) features of familiar and unfamiliar faces is represented in face-selective regions. There was a significant response to both the internal and external features of the face when presented in isolation. However, the response to the internal features was greater than the response to the external features. There was significant adaptation to repeated images of either the internal or external features of the face in the fusiform face area (FFA). However, the magnitude of this adaptation was greater for the internal features of familiar faces. Next, we asked whether the internal features of the face are represented independently from the external features. There was a release from adaptation in the FFA to composite images in which the internal features were varied but the external features were unchanged, or when the internal features were unchanged but the external features varied, demonstrating a holistic response. Finally, we asked whether the holistic response to faces could be influenced by the context in which the face was presented. We found that adaptation was still evident to composite images in which the face was unchanged but body features were varied. Together, these findings show that although internal features are important in the neural representation of familiar faces, the face's internal and external features are represented holistically in face-selective regions of the human brain.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it