scholarly journals Does face inversion disrupt perceived cuteness and pupillary response?

Author(s):  
Kana Kuraguchi ◽  
Kei Kanari
2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jisien Yang ◽  
Adrian Schwaninger

Configural processing has been considered the major contributor to the face inversion effect (FIE) in face recognition. However, most researchers have only obtained the FIE with one specific ratio of configural alteration. It remains unclear whether the ratio of configural alteration itself can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. We aimed to clarify this issue by manipulating the configural information parametrically using six different ratios, ranging from 4% to 24%. Participants were asked to judge whether a pair of faces were entirely identical or different. The paired faces that were to be compared were presented either simultaneously (Experiment 1) or sequentially (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed that the FIE was observed only when the ratio of configural alteration was in the intermediate range. These results indicate that even though the FIE has been frequently adopted as an index to examine the underlying mechanism of face processing, the emergence of the FIE is not robust with any configural alteration but dependent on the ratio of configural alteration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 670-679
Author(s):  
Krista Greenan ◽  
Sandra L. Taylor ◽  
Daniel Fulkerson ◽  
Kiarash Shahlaie ◽  
Clayton Gerndt ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEA recent retrospective study of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in pediatric patients showed similar outcomes in those with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3 and those with a score of 4 and reported a favorable long-term outcome in 11.9% of patients. Using decision tree analysis, authors of that study provided criteria to identify patients with a potentially favorable outcome. The authors of the present study sought to validate the previously described decision tree and further inform understanding of the outcomes of children with a GCS score 3 or 4 by using data from multiple institutions and machine learning methods to identify important predictors of outcome.METHODSClinical, radiographic, and outcome data on pediatric TBI patients (age < 18 years) were prospectively collected as part of an institutional TBI registry. Patients with a GCS score of 3 or 4 were selected, and the previously published prediction model was evaluated using this data set. Next, a combined data set that included data from two institutions was used to create a new, more statistically robust model using binomial recursive partitioning to create a decision tree.RESULTSForty-five patients from the institutional TBI registry were included in the present study, as were 67 patients from the previously published data set, for a total of 112 patients in the combined analysis. The previously published prediction model for survival was externally validated and performed only modestly (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.47, 0.89). In the combined data set, pupillary response and age were the only predictors retained in the decision tree. Ninety-six percent of patients with bilaterally nonreactive pupils had a poor outcome. If the pupillary response was normal in at least one eye, the outcome subsequently depended on age: 72% of children between 5 months and 6 years old had a favorable outcome, whereas 100% of children younger than 5 months old and 77% of those older than 6 years had poor outcomes. The overall accuracy of the combined prediction model was 90.2% with a sensitivity of 68.4% and specificity of 93.6%.CONCLUSIONSA previously published survival model for severe TBI in children with a low GCS score was externally validated. With a larger data set, however, a simplified and more robust model was developed, and the variables most predictive of outcome were age and pupillary response.


1967 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 603-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger P. Dooley ◽  
Donald J. Lehr

This critique questions the experimental design, controls and data analysis of a recent pupillary response experiment by Hess and Polt (1966).


2020 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 102361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oludamilare Matthews ◽  
Alan Davies ◽  
Markel Vigo ◽  
Simon Harper

Cognition ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 212 ◽  
pp. 104664
Author(s):  
Ayelet Sapir ◽  
Ronen Hershman ◽  
Avishai Henik

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document