ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of human and marmoset basic-level face categorization based on shape.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our ability to process faces depends on high-level visual areas in the brain which are thought to be partially shared between human and non-human primates. Nonetheless, studies of face recognition – whether for detecting or discriminating faces – in non-human primates have generally relied on 2D face photographs where low-level strategies relying on texture and appearance cues can be employed to adequately support task performance. Here, we tested humans and marmoset monkeys on a geometry-based invariant face category discrimination task under 3D pose and lighting variation using two textureless faces (human versus monkey) that only differed in their internal face geometry. Both humans and marmosets performed this shape based, basic-level face category discrimination task at comparable levels to their basic-level object category discrimination performance, while state-of-the art artificial vision systems specifically struggled on the face categorization task. Marmosets and humans both exhibited face-specific behavioral signatures including lower category discrimination performance for inverted faces, faces lit from below, and contrast reversed faces compared to normally lit upright faces. However, the magnitude of these deficits differed between marmosets and humans with marmosets less affected by inversion and more affected by contrast reversal than humans. Our results suggest that different primate species may differ in the details of their face processing. However, invariant face categorization ability based purely on shape appears to be generally preserved across simian primates from among the smallest to the most advanced, consistent with the presence of partially overlapping underlying high-level visual brain areas.
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.