Selective Attention to Faces in a Rapid Visual Stream: Hemispheric Differences in Enhancement and Suppression of Category-selective Neural Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In daily life, efficient perceptual categorization of faces occurs in dynamic and highly complex visual environments. Yet the role of selective attention in guiding face categorization has predominantly been studied under sparse and static viewing conditions, with little focus on disentangling the impact of attentional enhancement and suppression. Here we show that attentional enhancement and suppression exert a differential impact on face categorization supported by the left and right hemispheres. We recorded 128-channel EEG while participants viewed a 6-Hz stream of object images (buildings, animals, objects, etc.) with a face image embedded as every fifth image (i.e., OOOOFOOOOFOOOOF…). We isolated face-selective activity by measuring the response at the face presentation frequency (i.e., 6 Hz/5 = 1.2 Hz) under three conditions: Attend Faces, in which participants monitored the sequence for instances of female faces; Attend Objects, in which they responded to instances of guitars; and Baseline, in which they performed an orthogonal task on the central fixation cross. During the orthogonal task, face-specific activity was predominantly centered over the right occipitotemporal region. Actively attending to faces enhanced face-selective activity much more evidently in the left hemisphere than in the right, whereas attending to objects suppressed the face-selective response in both hemispheres to a comparable extent. In addition, the time courses of attentional enhancement and suppression did not overlap. These results suggest the left and right hemispheres support face-selective processing in distinct ways-where the right hemisphere is mandatorily engaged by faces and the left hemisphere is more flexibly recruited to serve current tasks demands.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".