Contrast Negation Impairs Sorting Unfamiliar Faces by Identity: A Comparison With Original (Contrast-Positive) and Stretched Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognition of unfamiliar faces is difficult in part due to variations in expressions, angles, and image quality. Studies suggest shape and surface properties play varied roles in face learning, and identification of unfamiliar faces uses diagnostic pigmentation/surface reflectance relative to shape information. Here, participants sorted photo-cards of unfamiliar faces by identity, which were shown in their original, stretched, and contrast-negated forms, to examine the utility of diagnostic shape and surface properties in sorting unfamiliar faces by identity. In four experiments, we varied the presentation order of conditions ( contrast-negated first or original first with stretched second across experiments) and whether the same or different photo-cards were seen across conditions. Stretching the images did not impair performance in any measures relative to other conditions. Contrast negation generally exacerbated poor sorting by identity compared with the other conditions. However, seeing the contrast-negated photo-cards last mitigated some of the effects of contrast negation. Together, results suggest an important role for surface properties such as pigmentation and reflectance for sorting by identity and add to literatures on informational content and appearance variability in discrimination of facial identity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".