Use of Face Information Varies Systematically From Developmental Prosopagnosics to Super-Recognizers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face-recognition abilities differ largely in the neurologically typical population. We examined how the use of information varies with face-recognition ability from developmental prosopagnosics to super-recognizers. Specifically, we investigated the use of facial features at different spatial scales in 112 individuals, including 5 developmental prosopagnosics and 8 super-recognizers, during an online famous-face-identification task using the bubbles method. We discovered that viewing of the eyes and mouth to identify faces at relatively high spatial frequencies is strongly correlated with face-recognition ability, evaluated from two independent measures. We also showed that the abilities of developmental prosopagnosics and super-recognizers are explained by a model that predicts face-recognition ability from the use of information built solely from participants with intermediate face-recognition abilities ( n = 99). This supports the hypothesis that the use of information varies quantitatively from developmental prosopagnosics to super-recognizers as a function of face-recognition ability.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it