Mass-univariate analysis of scalp ERPs reveals large effects of gaze fixation location during face processing that only weakly interact with face emotional expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decoding others' facial expressions is critical for social functioning. To clarify the neural correlates of expression perception depending on where we look on the face, three combined gaze-contingent ERP experiments were analyzed using robust mass-univariate statistics. Regardless of task, fixation location impacted face processing from 50 to 350 ms, maximally around 120 ms, reflecting retinotopic mapping around C2 and P1 components. Fixation location also impacted majorly the N170-P2 interval while weak effects were seen at the face-sensitive N170 peak. Results question the widespread assumption that faces are processed holistically into an indecomposable perceptual whole around the N170. Rather, face processing is a complex and view-dependent process that continues well beyond the N170. Expression and fixation location interacted weakly during the P1-N170 interval, supporting a role for the mouth and left eye in fearful and happy expression decoding. Expression effects were weakest at the N170 peak but strongest around P2, especially for fear, reflecting task-independent affective processing. Results suggest N170 reflects a transition between processes rather than the maximum of a holistic face processing stage. Focus on this peak should be replaced by data-driven analyses of the epoch using robust statistics to fully unravel the early visual processing of faces and their affective content.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".