MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514389873 · doi:10.1145/2955097

Detection of Subconscious Face Recognition Using Consumer-Grade Brain-Computer Interfaces

2016· article· en· W2514389873 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel Vargas Martín, Victor Cho, Gabriel Aversano

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Applied Perception · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubconsciousFace (sociological concept)PsychologySet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We test the possibility of tapping the subconscious mind for face recognition using consumer-grade BCIs. To this end, we performed an experiment whereby subjects were presented with photographs of famous persons with the expectation that about 20% of them would be (consciously) recognized; and since the photos are of famous persons, we expected that subjects would have seen before some of the 80% they didn’t (consciously) recognize. Further, we expected that their subconscious would have recognized some of those in the 80% pool that they had seen before. An exit questionnaire and a set of criteria allowed us to label recognitions as conscious, false, no recognitions, or subconscious recognitions. We analyzed a number of event related potentials training and testing a support vector machine. We found that our method is capable of differentiating between no recognitions and subconscious recognitions with promising accuracy levels, suggesting that tapping the subconscious mind for face recognition is feasible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Applied PerceptionSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207