MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235820440 · doi:10.1167/13.9.169

Which feature is fixated modulates the N170 regardless of facial expression

2013· article· en· W4235820440 on OpenAlexaff
Karly Neath, Roxane J. Itier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacial expressionCategorizationPsychologyFixation (population genetics)Facial Action Coding SystemPerceptionCognitive psychologyEmotional expressionFeature (linguistics)Eye movementFace perceptionCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceMedicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facial expressions represent an important part of non-verbal communication used in everyday life. The N170 is widely regarded as a face-sensitive potential and has been linked to facial structural encoding, however it remains debated whether the N170 is modulated by facial expressions of emotion. We investigated how attention to facial features affects the early stages of emotion perception during an implicit emotion processing task. ERPs were recorded in response to presentations of fearful, joyful, or neutral facial expressions while fixation was restricted to the left eye, right eye, nose, or mouth using an eye tracker. Participants’ task was to discriminate the face gender. Enhanced N170 amplitudes and longer latencies were found when participants were fixated on the left and right eyes compared to the mouth and nose irrespective of emotion. Importantly, the N170 was not modulated by emotion. The results support the view that the N170 component is not sensitive to the facial expression in an implicit emotional task. In contrast, which feature is fixated modulates this component. As the eyes have been shown to be the diagnostic feature used to correctly categorize face gender, it could be that attention to the diagnostic feature is what drives N170 modulation with emotion in previous studies not controlling for fixation. This idea is currently being tested using an explicit emotional task with the same stimuli. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207