Cited by 130Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsFace recognition and analysis

Potential downside of high initial visual acuity.

Open access
Vogelsang, Lukas, Gilad-Gutnick, Sharon, Ehrenberg, Evan, Yonas, Albert, Diamond, Sidney, Held, Richard, Sinha, Pawan·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Children who are treated for congenital cataracts later exhibit impairments in configural face analysis. This has been explained in terms of a critical period for the acquisition of normal face processing. Here, we consider a more parsimonious account according to which deficits in configural analysis result from the abnormally high initial retinal acuity that children treated for cataracts experience, relative to typical newborns. According to this proposal, the initial period of low retinal acuity characteristic of normal visual development induces extended spatial processing in the cortex that is important for configural face judgments. As a computational test of this hypothesis, we examined the effects of training with high-resolution or blurred images, and staged combinations, on the receptive fields and performance of a convolutional neural network. The results show that commencing training with blurred images creates receptive fields that integrate information across larger image areas and leads to improved performance and better generalization across a range of resolutions. These findings offer an explanation for the observed face recognition impairments after late treatment of congenital blindness, suggest an adaptive function for the acuity trajectory in normal development, and provide a scheme for improving the performance of computational face recognition systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1800901115

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Poorly resolved early vision is adaptive because it permits a cognitive transition in visual feature categorization from general to specific.

    “This is considered adaptive because it permits a cognitive transition in the way visual features are categorized, from the general to the specific (Vogelsang et al., 2018).”

    From The function(s) of consciousness revisited: insights from a modular/constitutive model using vision as a test case (2026) · cites this paper as Vogelsang et al., 2018

    The Significance section (page unavailable) proposes that initially poor acuity may be adaptive and reports that training first on blurred images improves classification across resolutions. It does not establish a cognitive transition in visual feature categorization from general to specific; its account concerns spatial integration and a progression from low to high acuity. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Banks MS, Crowell JA (1993) Front-end limitations to infant spatial vision: Exam- iniation of two analyses. Early Visual Development: Normal and Abnormal, ed Simons K (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 91-116.
  2. Wilson HR (1993) Theories of Infant Visual Development. Early visual development: Normal and abnormal, ed Simons K (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 560-569.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vogelsang, L., Gilad-Gutnick, S., Ehrenberg, E., Yonas, A., Diamond, S., Held, R., & Sinha, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139;
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sinha, Pawan
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-10-15
Volume
115
Issue
44
Pages
11333-11338
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2897222461
Cited by
130
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 7
FWCI
8.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
HHS | NIH | National Eye Institute (EYR01020517)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
congenital cataract, face processing, visual development, critical period, congenital blindness, receptive fields, convolutional neural networks, face recognition (cognition)
MeSH terms
Facial Recognition, Blindness, Cataract, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Visual Acuity, Spatial Processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review