MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402144599 · doi:10.1186/s41235-024-00584-4

Perceptual comparisons induce lasting and generalizing changes to face memory reports

2024· article· en· W4402144599 on OpenAlexafffund
Jerrick Teoh, Joseph M. Saito, Yvanna Yeo, Sophia Winter, Keisuke Fukuda

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Research Principles and Implications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsCanadian Celiac AssociationUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyGeneralizability theoryCognitive psychologyPerceptionVisual memoryFace (sociological concept)Experimental psychologyVisual short-term memoryVisual perceptionWorking memoryIconic memoryShort-term memorySimilarity (geometry)Face perceptionCognitionNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans are often tasked to remember new faces so that they can recognize the faces later in time. Previous studies found that memory reports for basic visual features (e.g., colors and shapes) are susceptible to systematic distortions as a result of comparison with new visual input, especially when the input is perceived as similar to the memory. The current study tested whether this similarity-induced memory bias (SIMB) would also occur with more complex face stimuli. The results showed that faces that are just perceptually encoded into visual working memory as well as retrieved from visual long-term memory are also susceptible to SIMB. Furthermore, once induced, SIMB persisted over time across cues through which the face memory was accessed for memory report. These results demonstrate the generalizability of SIMB to more complex and practically relevant stimuli, and thus, suggest potential real-world implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.454
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.018 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Research Principles and ImplicationsSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207