Cortical Face-Selective Responses Emerge Early in Human Infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In human adults, multiple cortical regions respond robustly to faces, including the occipital face area (OFA) and fusiform face area (FFA), implicated in face perception, and the superior temporal sulcus (STS) and medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), implicated in higher-level social functions. When in development, does face selectivity arise in each of these regions? Here, we combined two awake infant functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets to create a sample size twice the size of previous reports ( n = 65 infants; 2.6–9.6 months). Infants watched movies of faces, bodies, objects, and scenes, while fMRI data were collected. Despite variable amounts of data from each infant, individual subject whole-brain activation maps revealed responses to faces compared to nonface visual categories in the approximate location of OFA, FFA, STS, and MPFC. To determine the strength and nature of face selectivity in these regions, we used cross-validated functional region of interest analyses. Across this larger sample size, face responses in OFA, FFA, STS, and MPFC were significantly greater than responses to bodies, objects, and scenes. Even the youngest infants (2–5 months) showed significantly face-selective responses in FFA, STS, and MPFC, but not OFA. These results demonstrate that face selectivity is present in multiple cortical regions within months of birth, providing powerful constraints on theories of cortical development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".