MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753250553 · doi:10.1167/17.10.268

Task-modulated integration of facial features in the brain

2017· article· en· W2753250553 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Faghel-Soubeyrand, Frédéric Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Visual processingFeature (linguistics)ElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFace (sociological concept)Computer scienceSpeech recognitionComputer visionPsychologyPerceptionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of intermodulation frequencies (IM) in an EEG frequency-tagging paradigm indicates non-linear integration of multiple tagged visual features by the brain (Norcia et al., 2015). Despite its growing use in high-level vision, the efficiency of IM as an index of non-linear processing remains unclear, mostly because the importance of the non-linear integration for the task is typically unknown. We assessed the efficiency of IM using a realistic face processing task which we know implements a simple XOR non-linear function—wink detection. On each trial, EEG activity was recorded while each feature of a face flickered at a specific frequency (e.g. left eye: 6 Hz, right eye: 3Hz and mouth: 8 Hz). Subjects had to fixate a central cross and detect winks (one eye closed rather than no eyes/both eyes closed) in the non-linear condition, and the closing of one of the two eyes in the linear condition. Comparisons of brain responses between tasks during identical visual stimulations revealed that left/right-eye tagged IM—the neural response imputable to the non-linear integration of both features—were stronger in occipito-temporal electrodes when this particular feature integration was useful for the task at hand (i.e. wink condition, F(1,362)=13.98,p< .001). The magnitude of the eye-pair IM was also associated with faster response time (RT) in the non-linear wink detection condition (r= -.73,p< .05), but not in the linear control task (r=-.10,p>.70). Oppositely, the magnitude of the mouth tagged neural responses (unrelated to both tasks) was associated with longer RT in both conditions (r1=.67,p1< .05;r2 =.85,p2< .05), most likely reflecting a distractor effect. While the magnitude of feature frequency-tags clearly outweighed that of IM (average SNR were ~15 and ~1.75, respectively), the present results clearly demonstrates that IM can be an effective neural correlate of non-linear visual integration processing. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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