MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2213516339 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514551112

Feature-based face representations and image reconstruction from behavioral and neural data

2015· article· en· W2213516339 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian Nestor, David C. Plaut, Marlene Behrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)GeneralityComputer visionVisual cortexPattern recognition (psychology)Facial recognition systemRobustness (evolution)Face (sociological concept)Face perceptionIterative reconstructionFeature (linguistics)PerceptionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reconstruction of images from neural data can provide a unique window into the content of human perceptual representations. Although recent efforts have established the viability of this enterprise using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patterns, these efforts have relied on a variety of prespecified image features. Here, we take on the twofold task of deriving features directly from empirical data and of using these features for facial image reconstruction. First, we use a method akin to reverse correlation to derive visual features from functional MRI patterns elicited by a large set of homogeneous face exemplars. Then, we combine these features to reconstruct novel face images from the corresponding neural patterns. This approach allows us to estimate collections of features associated with different cortical areas as well as to successfully match image reconstructions to corresponding face exemplars. Furthermore, we establish the robustness and the utility of this approach by reconstructing images from patterns of behavioral data. From a theoretical perspective, the current results provide key insights into the nature of high-level visual representations, and from a practical perspective, these findings make possible a broad range of image-reconstruction applications via a straightforward methodological approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207