A multivariate investigation of visual word, face, and ensemble processing: Perspectives from EEG‐based decoding and feature selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent investigations have focused on the spatiotemporal dynamics of visual recognition by appealing to pattern analysis of EEG signals. While this work has established the ability to decode identity-level information (such as the identity of a face or of a word) from neural signals, much less is known about the precise nature of the signals that support such feats, their robustness across visual categories, or their consistency across human participants. Here, we address these questions through the use of EEG-based decoding and multivariate feature selection as applied to three visual categories: words, faces and face ensembles (i.e., crowds of faces). Specifically, we use recursive feature elimination to estimate the diagnosticity of time and frequency-based EEG features for identity-level decoding across three datasets targeting each of the three categories. We then relate feature diagnosticity across categories and across participants while, also, aiming to increase decoding performance and reliability. Our investigation shows that word and face processing are similar in their reliance on spatiotemporal information provided by occipitotemporal channels. In contrast, ensemble processing appears to also rely on central channels and exhibits a similar profile with word processing in the frequency domain. Further, we find that feature diagnosticity is stable across participants and is even capable of supporting cross-participant feature selection, as demonstrated by systematic boosts in decoding accuracy and feature reduction. Thus, our investigation sheds new light on the nature and the structure of the information underlying identity-level visual processing as well as on its generality across categories and participants.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".