Measuring the time course of spatial frequency use for face recognition from East to West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Easterners allocate their attention more broadly and integrate more the peripheral elements of a scene or a face than Westerners (Boduroglu et al., 2009). Relying on the peripheral visual field entails the use of lower spatial frequencies (SF; Hilz & Cavonius, 1974). In a recent study we found that Chinese participants made a better utilization of low SF whereas Canadians made a better utilization of high SF during face identification (Tardif et al., 2015). Here, we investigate the time course of the SF utilization across cultures. For this, we used a modified version of SF Bubbles (Willenbockel et al., 2010) with 15 Canadians and 25 Chinese. The method consisted in creating temporal sequences of random SF filters, meaning that the SF available to the participant varied through time within one trial. On each trial, a randomly filtered face, either Asian or Caucasian, was presented for 300ms, followed by a robust mask. The participant had to recognize its identity among eight identities of the same ethnicity learned beforehand (block design). Multiple regression analysis on the SF sampled and the participant's accuracy was used to create group classification images showing the SF tuning across time of Westerners and Easterners for Caucasian and Asian faces separately. Statistical thresholds were found using the Stat4CI (Chauvin et al., 2005). We replicate our previous findings suggesting that Westerners make more use of higher SF than Easterners for Caucasian faces (>15.6 cycles per face (cpf); Zcrit=2.7, p< 0.025) whereas the latter group makes more use of lower SF than the former (from 0.3 to 12 cpf for Caucasian faces, from 0.3 to 8 cpf for Asian faces; Zcrit=-2.7, p< 0.025). Most importantly, we show that this cultural difference occurs within 30ms and is consistent for the next 200ms of information extraction. 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".