Sex differences for the recognition of direct versus averted gaze faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaze direction plays a central role in face recognition. Previous research suggests that faces with direct gaze are better remembered than faces with averted gaze. We compared recognition of faces with direct versus averted gaze in male versus female participants. A total of 52 adults (23 females, 29 males) and 46 children (25 females, 21 males) completed a computerised task that assessed their recognition of faces with direct gaze and faces with averted gaze. Adult male participants showed superior recognition of faces with direct gaze compared to faces with averted gaze. There was no difference between recognition of direct and averted gaze faces for the adult female participants. Children did not demonstrate this sex difference; rather, both male and female youth participants showed better recognition of faces with direct gaze compared to averted gaze. A large body of previous research has revealed superior recognition of faces with direct, compared to averted gaze. However, relatively few studies have examined sex differences. Our findings suggest that gaze direction has differential effects on face recognition for adult males and females, but not for children. These findings have implications for previous explanations of better recognition for direct versus averted gaze.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".