Scanning faces: a deep learning approach to studying eye movements in prosopagnosia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthy individuals show fixation biases when scanning faces, likely toward the regions that are most informative for identifying faces. Some reports suggest that subjects with prosopagnosia, an impairment in face recognition, have anomalous face scanning. Objective: Our goal was to determine whether an approach using artificial intelligence could identify key scanning markers of prosopagnosia. Methods: We used an image-classification technique based on deep learning to study the fixations of subjects with and without prosopagnosia during a face recognition task. We identified the number of fixations that maximizes classification performance and developed two methods of displaying scanpaths as images, each used to train a convolutional neural network. Results: Optimal classification of acquired prosopagnosic from control trials required four fixations, with an AUC of 80%. The model showed a greater tendency to fixate the lower face and the right eye in acquired prosopagnosia. Optimal classification of developmental prosopagnosic from control trials required 16 fixations, with an AUC of 69%. Fixations on developmental prosopagnosic trials were shifted more toward peripheral regions. When the classifier trained to discriminate acquired prosopagnosia from controls was asked to analyze the developmental prosopagnosic trials, the latter were classified as being more like control scanpaths. Conclusion: Only a few fixations during face scanning are required to differentiate controls from acquired prosopagnosia, with the latter showing anomalous biases. Developmental prosopagnosic scanpaths resemble degraded control scanpaths rather than anomalous biases. This study shows the potential of deep learning to identify abnormal behavioral markers in a disorder of complex visual processing.
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 | 0.001 | 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".