Two Sides of Face Learning: Improving Between-Identity Discrimination While Tolerating More Within-Person Variability in Appearance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two photos of an unfamiliar face are often perceived as belonging to different people—an error that disappears when a face is familiar. Face learning has been characterized as increased tolerance of within-person variability in appearance and is facilitated by exposure to such variability (e.g., differences in expression, lighting, and aesthetics). We hypothesized that increased tolerance of variability in appearance might lead to reduced discrimination and that misidentifications would be reduced if a face was learned in the context of a similar-looking identity. After validating our stimuli (Experiments 1a and 1b), we conducted three experiments investigating face learning. In two of these, participants learned three faces (Experiment 2: 15 images/identity and Experiment 3: 5 images/identity), two of which were similar. In a recognition task, misidentifications did not change as a function of similarity, although participants recognized more images of the target in Experiment 2 (i.e., after learning 15 images). In Experiment 4, participants learned one identity and the number of images studied varied across groups. Recognition of new images increased with the number of images studied, with no changes in false alarms; sensitivity (A′) marginally increased. The results suggest that recognition and discrimination reflect separable processes with minimal influence of between-person similarity on discrimination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".