Multiple images captured from a single encounter do not promote face learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viewing multiple images of a newly encountered face improves recognition of that identity in new instances. Studies examining face learning have presented high-variability (HV) images that incorporate changes that occur from moment-to-moment (e.g., head orientation and expression) and over time (e.g., lighting, hairstyle, and health). We examined whether low-variability (LV) images (i.e., images that incorporate only moment-to-moment changes) also promote generalisation of learning such that novel instances are recognised. Participants viewed a single image, six LV images, or six HV images of a target identity before being asked to recognise novel images of that identity in a face matching task (training stimuli remained visible) or a memory task (training stimuli were removed). In Experiment 1 ( n = 71), participants indicated which image(s) in 8-image arrays belonged to the target identity. In Experiment 2 ( n = 73), participants indicated whether sequentially presented images belonged to the target identity. Relative to the single-image condition, sensitivity to identity improved and response biases were less conservative in the HV condition; we found no evidence of generalisation of learning in the LV condition regardless of testing protocol. Our findings suggest that day-to-day variability in appearance plays an essential role in acquiring expertise with a novel face.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".