MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2837513553 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200106

Mooney face stimuli for visual perception research

2018· article· en· W2837513553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caspar M. Schwiedrzik, Lucía Melloni, Aaron Schurger

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsH2020 European Research CouncilDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMax-Planck-GesellschaftCanadian Psychological AssociationEuropean CommissionFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsPerceptPerceptionStimulus (psychology)Visual perceptionSet (abstract data type)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1957, Craig Mooney published a set of human face stimuli to study perceptual closure: the formation of a coherent percept on the basis of minimal visual information. Images of this type, now known as "Mooney faces", are widely used in cognitive psychology and neuroscience because they offer a means of inducing variable perception with constant visuo-spatial characteristics (they are often not perceived as faces if viewed upside down). Mooney's original set of 40 stimuli has been employed in several studies. However, it is often necessary to use a much larger stimulus set. We created a new set of over 500 Mooney faces and tested them on a cohort of human observers. We present the results of our tests here, and make the stimuli freely available via the internet. Our test results can be used to select subsets of the stimuli that are most suited for a given experimental purpose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.464
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→