MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386242373 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5326

Early neural dehumanization of other race faces

2023· article· en· W4386242373 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Duncan, Marie‐Pier Plouffe‐Demers, Émilie St-Pierre, Caroline Blais, Daniel Fiset

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PsychologyElectroencephalographyPairwise comparisonPattern recognition (psychology)CategorizationEvent-related potentialCommunicationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans typically recognize racial ingroup faces more efficiently, while paradoxically categorizing outgroup faces more efficiently. These other race effects have been studied using an array of behavioral and electrophysiological tools; however, classical event-related inquiries have yielded mixed results. To shed new light on the issue, we adapted single trial electroencephalography (EEG) decoding to perform representational similarity analysis. Scalp EEG was measured on thirteen White participants who each completed 5,600 trials of 1-back task. Images were briefly presented (200ms), and a button press was required whenever a stimulus was repeated. Stimuli consisted of 160 natural images categorized into dark and light humans (half females, half males) and nonhumans (half primate faces and half chess pieces). In turn, each category consisted of four individuals (e.g., pawn, rook, queen, knight) with five variations (e.g., five different pawns). First, EEG was decoded at each time point (-200ms to 800ms post stimulus) across 12,720 pairs of stimuli using a cross-validated pairwise support vector machine. This step was performed 100 times, randomly assigning trials to learning and testing subsets on each iteration. Then, within-pair average decoding accuracies were assigned to a representational dissimilarity matrix. Finally, representational similarity analysis was carried by comparing the representational dissimilarity matrix to various model matrices using Spearman partial correlation. Overall, neural responses conveyed basic category information about human faces (peak latency 137ms), primate faces (133ms), and chess pieces (133ms). However, a striking contrast emerged between light and dark human faces. Whereas early (160ms) and late (350ms) representations of light human faces were largely distinct from primate faces and chess pieces, early (but not late) representations of dark human faces showed significant overlap with primate faces. Such early neural dehumanization might provide a novel mechanistic account of other race effects.

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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