MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892972586 · doi:10.1167/18.10.166

Holistic gist: The speed of holistic face processing

2018· article· en· W2892972586 on OpenAlexaff
James Tanaka, Buyun Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGiSTFace (sociological concept)Computer scienceMedicineSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In scene perception, there is evidence that the observers are able to extract the "gist" (i.e., semantics) from images presented as briefly as 13 ms (Potter et al., 2014). Although it is well known that faces are perceived holistically, how the holistic face gist is encoded has not been extensively explored. To test for the presence of gist processing, in Experiment 1, we flashed a study face for either 17, 50, 250 or 500 ms, followed by a 500 ms dynamic white-noise mask. Recognition of face features (eyes, nose, mouth) was then tested in isolation or in the whole face using Tanaka and Farah's parts/wholes paradigm (Tanaka & Farah, 1991). We found that eyes were better recognized in the whole face than in isolation when presented at an exposure duration of 17ms and mouth was better recognized in the whole face when presented for 50 ms and 250 ms. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to recognize the eyes and mouth in upright and inverted faces presented at 17, 50 and 250 ms using the same parts/whole paradigm as Experiment 1. The main effect of orientation was found where recognition in the inverted condition was significantly worse than the upright condition. Moreover, a significant Parts/Whole by Orientation interaction effect was found where recognition of features was better in the whole face than in isolation when faces were upright, but not when faces were inverted. Importantly, for upright faces, at 17 ms exposure duration, eyes were better recognized in the whole face than in isolation. For inverted faces, no differences were found between the whole face and isolation conditions. Collectively, these results present the striking evidence that the in face processing, holistic gist can be encoded at an exposure duration as short as 17ms. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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