Effects of Faces and Voices on the Encoding of Biographic Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are multiple forms of knowledge about people. Whether diverse person-related data interact is of interest regarding the more general issue of integration of multi-source information about the world. Our goal was to examine whether perception of a person's face or voice enhanced the encoding of their biographic data. We performed three experiments. In the first experiment, subjects learned the biographic data of a character with or without a video clip of their face. In the second experiment, they learned the character's data with an audio clip of either a generic narrator's voice or the character's voice relating the same biographic information. In the third experiment, an audiovisual clip of both the face and voice of either a generic narrator or the character accompanied the learning of biographic data. After learning, a test phase presented biographic data alone, and subjects were tested first for familiarity and second for matching of biographic data to the name. The results showed equivalent learning of biographic data across all three experiments, and none showed evidence that a character's face or voice enhanced the learning of biographic information. We conclude that the simultaneous processing of perceptual representations of people may not modulate the encoding of biographic data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".