From Pictures to the People in Them: Averaging Within-Person Variability Leads to Face Familiarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Familiar faces can be confidently recognized despite sometimes radical changes in their appearance. Exposure to within-person variability—differences in facial characteristics over successive encounters—contributes to face familiarization. Research also suggests that viewers create mental averages of the different views of faces they encounter while learning them. Averaging over within-person variability is thus a promising mechanism for face familiarization. In Experiment 1, 153 Canadian undergraduates (88 female; age: M = 21 years, SD = 5.24) learned six target identities from eight different photos of each target interspersed among 32 distractor identities. Face-matching accuracy improved similarly irrespective of awareness of the target’s identity, confirming that target faces presented among distractors can be learned incidentally. In Experiment 2, 170 Canadian undergraduates (125 female; age: M = 22.6 years, SD = 6.02) were tested using a novel indirect measure of learning. The results show that viewers update a mental average of a person’s face as it becomes learned. Our findings are the first to show how averaging within-person variability over time leads to face familiarization.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".