Neural computations in prosopagnosia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report an investigation of the neural processes involved in the processing of faces and objects of brain-lesioned patient PS, a well-documented case of pure acquired prosopagnosia. We gathered a substantial dataset of high-density electrophysiological recordings from both PS and neurotypicals. Using representational similarity analysis, we produced time-resolved brain representations in a format that facilitates direct comparisons across time points, different individuals, and computational models. To understand how the lesions in PS's ventral stream affect the temporal evolution of her brain representations, we computed the temporal generalization of her brain representations. We uncovered that PS's early brain representations exhibit an unusual similarity to later representations, implying an excessive generalization of early visual patterns. To reveal the underlying computational deficits, we correlated PS' brain representations with those of deep neural networks (DNN). We found that the computations underlying PS' brain activity bore a closer resemblance to early layers of a visual DNN than those of controls. However, the brain representations in neurotypicals became more akin to those of the later layers of the model compared to PS. We confirmed PS's deficits in high-level brain representations by demonstrating that her brain representations exhibited less similarity with those of a DNN of semantics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".