Facial movements facilitate part-based, not holistic, processing in children, adolescents, and adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most of the faces we encounter daily are moving ones, much of what we know about face processing and its development is based on studies using static faces that emphasize holistic processing as the hallmark of mature face processing. Here the authors examined the effects of facial movements on face processing developmentally in children (8-year-olds), adolescents (12-year-olds), and adults (20-year-olds). In particular, the composite face effect was used to measure the influence of facial movements on part-based versus holistic processing after participants had viewed either a moving or static face in a within-subject design. Experiment 1 examined elastic facial movement (i.e., blinking and chewing). The results showed that children, adolescents, and adults exhibited a significantly smaller composite effect after viewing a moving face than after viewing a static face. This result indicates that elastic facial movement facilitates part-based face processing from at least 8 years of age onward. Experiment 2 examined rigid facial movement (i.e., head turning) and revealed that it too facilitates part-based face processing in children, adolescents, and adults. The results taken together suggest that contrary to the prevailing view, facial movements facilitate part-based, not holistic, face processing in children, adolescents, and adults. The findings call for revision in the conventional way of thinking about what constitutes the developmental trajectory toward mature face processing and also point to the importance of using more naturalistic moving face stimuli to study face processing and its development. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".