Recognition of Deformed Familiar Faces: Contrast Negation and Nonglobal Stretching
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
Familiar face recognition is robust to subtle and drastic changes in appearance. Knowing which conditions harm our recognition highlights underlying processes that have prominent roles in face learning. Here, we focused on two image deformations that studies suggest independently harm recognition: contrast negation and stretching of top or bottom halves of a face orthogonal to the unstretched half (nonglobal stretching). Participants were asked to categorize self-reported familiar or unfamiliar faces presented in photographic positive and negative in a fully within-subjects design. In Experiments 1 and 2, recognition of contrast-positive faces was robust to global and nonglobal stretching, suggesting iso-dimension ratios do not have a role in familiar face recognition. However, performance was consistently impaired by contrast negation in all configurational conditions. Further reductions in categorization accuracy when top halves of contrast-negated faces are stretched suggest some limited role for configuration under these image conditions. In Experiment 3, presenting the top or bottom half of nonglobal stretch conditions suggested categorization of nonglobal stretch faces did not require perception of the whole face, in the research design reported here. These results highlight further limits to configurational accounts of face recognition and indicate a relatively important role for surface reflectance cues.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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