When less is more: Impact of face processing ability on recognition of visually degraded faces.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally thought that faces are perceived as indissociable wholes. As a result, many assume that hiding large portions of the face by the addition of noise or by masking limits or qualitatively alters natural "expert" face processing by forcing observers to use atypical processing mechanisms. We addressed this question by measuring face processing abilities with whole faces and with Bubbles (Gosselin & Schyns, 2001), an extreme masking method thought by some to bias the observers toward the use of atypical processing mechanisms by limiting the use of whole-face strategies. We obtained a strong and negative correlation between individual face processing ability and the number of bubbles (r = -.79), and this correlation remained strong even after controlling for general visual/cognitive processing ability (rpartial = -.72). In other words, the better someone is at processing faces, the fewer facial parts they need to accurately carry out this task. Thus, contrary to what many researchers assume, face processing mechanisms appear to be quite insensitive to the visual impoverishment of the face stimulus.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".