Face inversion and contrast‐reversal effects across development: in contrast to the expertise theory
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
To determine the role of configural changes on the development of face encoding and memory, we investigated face recognition in an n-back repetition task with upright, inverted and contrast-reversed unfamiliar faces in adults and children (8-16 years). Repetitions occurred immediately (0-lag) or after one intervening face (1-lag). Face recognition continued to develop beyond 14-16 years, as shown with hit rates, d' scores and reaction times that all improved with age. Inversion and contrast-reversal effects were found in all subjects but were not more pronounced with increasing age, suggesting no increased reliance on configural processing and thus arguing against the expertise theory of Diamond and Carey (1986). Recognition improved with age in upright but also in inverted and contrast-reversed faces, suggesting a quantitative rather than a qualitative developmental change in face processing. For all age groups, performances decreased and reaction times increased from 0- to 1-lag conditions similarly, suggesting a similar memory component involved in adults' and children's processing. These data suggest gradual quantitative improvements in face processing with age, mainly due to increasing working memory processing capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it