The Neural Dynamics of Face Ensemble and Central Face Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive work has investigated the neural processing of single faces, including the role of shape and surface properties. However, much less is known about the neural basis of face ensemble perception (e.g., simultaneously viewing several faces in a crowd). Importantly, the contribution of shape and surface properties have not been elucidated in face ensemble processing. Furthermore, how single central faces are processed within the context of an ensemble remains unclear. Here, we probe the neural dynamics of ensemble representation using pattern analyses as applied to electrophysiology data in healthy adults (seven males, nine females). Our investigation relies on a unique set of stimuli, depicting different facial identities, which vary parametrically and independently along their shape and surface properties. These stimuli were organized into ensemble displays consisting of six surround faces arranged in a circle around one central face. Overall, our results indicate that both shape and surface properties play a significant role in face ensemble encoding, with the latter demonstrating a more pronounced contribution. Importantly, we find that the neural processing of the center face precedes that of the surround faces in an ensemble. Further, the temporal profile of center face decoding is similar to that of single faces, while those of single faces and face ensembles diverge extensively from each other. Thus, our work capitalizes on a new center-surround paradigm to elucidate the neural dynamics of ensemble processing and the information that underpins it. Critically, our results serve to bridge the study of single and ensemble face perception.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".