Word and text processing in developmental prosopagnosia
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 "many-to-many" hypothesis proposes that visual object processing is supported by distributed circuits that overlap for different object categories. For faces and words the hypothesis posits that both posterior fusiform regions contribute to both face and visual word perception and predicts that unilateral lesions impairing one will affect the other. However, studies testing this hypothesis have produced mixed results. We evaluated visual word processing in subjects with developmental prosopagnosia, a condition linked to right posterior fusiform abnormalities. Ten developmental prosopagnosic subjects performed a word-length effect task and a task evaluating the recognition of word content across variations in text style, and the recognition of style across variations in word content. All subjects had normal word-length effects. One had prolonged sorting time for word recognition in handwritten stimuli. These results suggest that the deficit in developmental prosopagnosia is unlikely to affect visual word processing, contrary to predictions of the many-to-many hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it