ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Domain Specificity vs. Domain Generality: The Case of Faces and Words.
Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Category selectivity observed in the human brain is distinct from category selectivity observed in artificial neural networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Faces and words are ever-present stimuli in social environments that require fine-grained, efficient discrimination of their constituents in order to acquire meaning. Provided that these stimuli share multiple characteristics, while simultaneously being different visual object categories in important ways, a debate has ensued pertaining to whether their processing can be reduced to a common mechanism or whether each category mobilizes exclusive resources. We thus first present briefly domain-specific and domain-general accounts, as opposing perspectives that highlight the absence and presence of commonalities in face and word processing, respectively. We then focus on how faces and words are processed. While faces are usually associated with holistic processing of facial features, to create a perceptual whole, there is no such consensus pertaining to word processing. Words have been argued to rely on either letter-by-letter processing or in a way closer to that of faces, since they are also objects of expertise. Lastly, we advance the debate by providing an overview of our latest research findings. These findings provide a more direct comparison of face and word processing, by incorporating both stimuli in one task concurrently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.