Face processing in the infant brain after pandemic lockdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The role of visual experience in the development of face processing has long been debated. We present a new angle on this question through a serendipitous study that cannot easily be repeated. Infants viewed short blocks of faces during fMRI in a repetition suppression task. The same identity was presented multiple times in half of the blocks (Repeat condition) and different identities were presented once each in the other half (Novel condition). In adults, the fusiform face area (FFA) tends to show greater neural activity for Novel vs. Repeat blocks in such designs, suggesting that it can distinguish same vs. different face identities. As part of an ongoing study, we collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic and after an initial State lockdown was lifted. The resulting sample of 12 infants (9–24 months) divided equally into pre- and post-lockdown groups with matching ages and data quantity/quality. The groups had strikingly different FFA responses: pre-lockdown infants showed repetition suppression (Novel>Repeat), whereas post-lockdown infants showed the opposite (Repeat>Novel), often referred to as repetition enhancement. These findings provide speculative evidence that altered visual experience during the lockdown, or other correlated environmental changes, may have affected face processing in the infant brain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".