MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187637912 · doi:10.1101/2020.10.08.330639

The role of animal faces in the animate-inanimate distinction in the ventral temporal cortex

2020· preprint· en· W3187637912 on OpenAlexaff
Daria Proklova, Melvyn A. Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimacyStimulus (psychology)Visual cortexFace (sociological concept)PsychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animate and inanimate objects elicit distinct response patterns in the human ventral temporal cortex (VTC), but the exact features driving this distinction are still poorly understood. One prominent feature that distinguishes typical animals from inanimate objects and that could potentially explain the animate-inanimate distinction in the VTC is the presence of a face. In the current fMRI study, we investigated this possibility by creating a stimulus set that included animals with faces, faceless animals, and inanimate objects, carefully matched in order to minimize other visual differences. We used both searchlight-based and ROI-based representational similarity analysis (RSA) to test whether the presence of a face explains the animate-inanimate distinction in the VTC. The searchlight analysis revealed that when animals with faces were removed from the analysis, the animate-inanimate distinction almost disappeared. The ROI-based RSA revealed a similar pattern of results, but also showed that, even in the absence of faces, information about agency (a combination of animal’s ability to move and think) is present in parts of the VTC that are sensitive to animacy. Together, these analyses showed that animals with faces do elicit a stronger animate/inanimate response in the VTC, but that this effect is driven not by faces per se, or the visual features of faces, but by other factors that correlate with face presence, such as the capacity for self-movement and thought. In short, the VTC appears to treat the face as a proxy for agency, a ubiquitous feature of familiar animals. Significance Statement Many studies have shown that images of animals are processed differently from inanimate objects in the human brain, particularly in the ventral temporal cortex (VTC). However, what features drive this distinction remains unclear. One important feature that distinguishes many animals from inanimate objects is a face. Here, we used fMRI to test whether the animate/inanimate distinction is driven by the presence of faces. We found that the presence of faces did indeed boost activity related to animacy in the VTC. A more detailed analysis, however, revealed that it was the association between faces and other attributes such as the capacity for self-movement and thinking, not the faces per se , that was driving the activity we observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207