MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516092051 · doi:10.1167/16.12.161

Facial expressions modulate visual features utilization in unfamiliar face identification

2016· article· en· W2516092051 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Fiset, Josiane Leclerc, Jessica Royer, Valérie Plouffe, Caroline Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacial expressionPsychologyDisgustExpression (computer science)Identification (biology)Face (sociological concept)AngerFeature (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyCommunicationSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible face identification requires extracting expression-independent visual information while leaving aside expression-dependant visual features. Most studies in the field suggest that the eye area is by far the most important visual feature for face identification (e.g. Butler et al., 2010; Schyns, Bonnar & Gosselin, 2002; Sekuler, Gaspar, Gold & Bennett, 2004). However, these studies were mostly done with stimuli showing only one (e.g. neutral) or two (e.g. neutral and happy) facial expressions. Here, we investigated the impact of facial expressions on the utilization of facial features in a facial identification task with unfamiliar faces (10 identities; 5 female). Each identity showed six different facial expressions (anger, disgust, fear, happy, neutral, sad). We used the Bubbles technique (Gosselin & Schyns, 2001) to reveal the diagnostic visual features in five non-overlapping spatial frequency bands. Twenty-five participants first learned to recognize the identities until their performance reached 95% correct for each facial expression. After reaching this performance criterion, they performed 1320 trials (220 for each facial expression) with bubblized stimuli. For each facial expression, the number of bubbles was adjusted on a trial-by-trial basis to maintain a correct identification rate of 55%. Overall, we closely replicate other studies (Caldara et al., 2005; Schyns, Bonnar & Gosselin, 2002). However, when each facial expression was analysed independently, the results show clear inter-expression differences. For neutral faces, the eyes are by far the most diagnostic features. However, for other facial expressions, participants showed a clear processing bias for expression-dependant facial features (e.g. the mouth for happy and disgust). In short, our data suggests that facial expression features are closely bound to identification in unfamiliar face recognition. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

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 score0.008

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207