Relations between scanning and recognition of own‐ and other‐race faces in 6‐ and 9‐month‐old infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants typically see more own-race faces than other-race faces. Existing evidence shows that this difference in face race experience has profound consequences for face processing: as early as 6 months of age, infants scan own- and other-race faces differently and display superior recognition for own- relative to other-race faces. However, it is unclear whether scanning of own-race faces is related to the own-race recognition advantage in infants. To bridge this gap in the literature, the current study used eye tracking to investigate the relation between own-race face scanning and recognition in 6- and 9-month-old Asian infants (N = 82). The infants were familiarized with dynamic own- and other-race faces, and then their face recognition was tested with static face images. Both age groups recognized own- but not other-race faces. Also, regardless of race, the more infants scanned the eyes of the novel versus familiar faces at test, the better their face-recognition performance. In addition, both 6- and 9-month-olds fixated significantly longer on the nose of own-race faces, and greater fixation on the nose during test trials correlated positively with individual novelty preference scores in the own- but not other-race condition. The results suggest that some aspects of the relation between recognition and scanning are independent of differential experience with face race, whereas other aspects are affected by such experience. More broadly, the findings imply that scanning and recognition may become linked during infancy at least in part through the influence of perceptual experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".