Dissociating unfamiliar and familiar face discrimination processes over the course of natural familiarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas most studies in the face processing literature have focused on either the perception of unfamiliar faces or the recognition of familiar faces, far fewer studies have investigated the processes by which an unfamiliar face becomes familiar. Here, we examined the emergence of face familiarity as a result of natural socialization. The brain responses of student participants enrolled in a small seminar course were recorded using fast periodic visual stimulation (FPVS) before meeting (pre-familiarization) and after 8-weeks of socialization (post-familiarization). Experimental stimuli consisted of participant and non-participant faces displaying a range of poses and expressions. At each test time, seminar participants viewed a stream of non-participant faces presented at 6 Hz with a participant face embedded every 7 images (0.86 Hz). In the converse condition, a 6 Hz stream of participant faces was embedded with a non-participant face every 7 images (0.86 Hz). Pre-familiarization, when peer and non-peer faces are equally unfamiliar, the visual stimulation in both conditions elicits a response at 6 Hz related to processing unfamiliar faces. However, after participant faces had become familiarized, effects pertaining to the differential familiarity of participant and non-participant faces began to emerge. In the post-familiarization test, the presentation rate of participant faces (0.86Hz) in the first condition elicited greater amplitudes approaching significance in high level visual areas only, reflecting increased familiarity of participant faces. By contrast, when participant faces are no longer unfamiliar, brain responses reflecting unfamiliar face processing should emerge in the alternative condition at the presentation rate of non-participant faces (0.86 Hz). Consistent with this, a robust increase in amplitudes at the 0.86 Hz frequency was observed post-familiarization, but in fronto-central sites only. Thus, by manipulating the personal familiarity of faces, we find differential brain regions involved in familiar compared to unfamiliar face discrimination 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".