Symmetric in the striate but asymmetric in the extrastriate cortex when processing <scp>three‐quarter</scp> faces: Neural underpinnings for aesthetic appreciations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faces and their aesthetic appreciation are a core element of social interaction. Although studies have been made on facial processing when looking at faces with different perspectives, a direct comparison of faces in the left to the right perspective is missing. Portraits in classical Western art indicate a preference of the left compared to the right perspective, but the neural underpinnings of such an asymmetry still have to be clarified. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the current study focuses on the processing of three-quarter faces seen with different perspectives. Seventeen participants were asked to passively look at photographs of six male and six female faces with a neutral expression; the photographs were taken from the left, right, and frontal perspectives while keeping their focus on the eyes. The results showed that specific brain areas were involved in processing the three-quarter faces in either symmetric or asymmetric ways. Viewing left and right three-quarter faces resulted in two mirror-like activations in the striate cortex corresponding to the symmetric layout of the left and right perspectives. Viewing the left face resulted additionally in an enhanced activation also in the left extrastriate cortex. The right perspective of male faces elicited a lower activation compared to other perspectives in face-selective areas of the brain. Our findings suggest that the preference of the left three-quarter face emerges already in the early visual pathway presumably prior to facial identification, emotional processing, and aesthetic appreciation. Our observations may have general importance in disentangling different neural components and processing stages in the spatiotemporal characteristics of artistic expressions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".