Autistic individuals do not alter visual processing strategy during encoding versus recognition of faces: A hidden Markov modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Visual face recognition - the ability to encode, discriminate, and recognize the faces of others - is fundamentally supported by eye movements and is a common source of difficulty for autistic individuals. We aimed to evaluate how visual processing strategies (i.e., eye movement patterns) directly support encoding and recognition of faces in autistic and neurotypical (NT) individuals. Methods: We used a hidden Markov modeling approach to evaluate the spatiotemporal dynamics of eye movements in autistic (n = 15) and neurotypical (NT) adolescents (n = 17) during a face identity recognition task.Results: We discovered distinct eye movement patterns among all participants, which included a focused and exploratory strategy. When evaluating change in visual processing strategy across encoding and recognition phases, autistic individuals did not shift their eye movement patterns like their NT peers, who shifted to a more exploratory visual processing strategy during recognition. Conclusions: These findings suggest that autistic individuals do not modulate their visual processing strategy across encoding and recognition of faces, which may be an indicator of less efficient face processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".