Making the ineffable explicit: estimating the information employed for face classifications

When we look at a face, we readily perceive that person’s gender, expression, identity, age, and attractiveness. Perceivers as well as scientists have hitherto had little success in articulating just what information we are employing to achieve these subjectively immediate and effortless classifications. We describe here a method that estimates that information. Observers classified faces in high levels of visual noise as male or female (in a gender task), happy/unhappy (in an expression task), or Tom Cruise/John Travolta (in an individuation task). They were unaware that the underlying face (which was midway between each of the classes) was identical throughout a task, with only the noise rendering it more like one category value or the other. The difference between the average of noise patterns for each classification decision provided a linear estimate of the information mediating these classifications. When the noise was combined with the underlying face, the resultant images appeared to be excellent prototypes of their respective classes. Other methods of estimating the information employed in complex classification have relied on judgments of exemplars of a class or tests of experimenter-defined hypotheses about the class information. Our method allows an estimate, however subtle, of what is in the subject’s (rather than the experimenter’s) head.     

What Does “Mind-Wandering” Mean to the Folk? An Empirical Investigation

Although mind-wandering research is rapidly progressing, stark disagreements are emerging about what the term “mind-wandering” means. Four prominent views define mind-wandering as (a) task-unrelated thought, (b) stimulus-independent thought, (c) unintentional thought, or (d) dynamically unguided thought. Although theorists claim to capture the ordinary understanding of mind-wandering, no systematic studies have assessed these claims. Two large factorial studies present participants (N = 545) with vignettes that describe someone's thoughts and ask whether her mind was wandering, while systematically manipulating features relevant to the four major accounts of mind-wandering. Dynamics explains between four and 40 times more variance in participants' mind-wandering judgments than other features. Our third study (N = 153) tests and supports a unique prediction of the dynamic framework—obsessive rumination contrasts with mind-wandering. Our final study (N = 277) used vignettes that resemble mind-wandering experiments. Dynamics had significant and large effects, while task-unrelatedness was nonsignificant. These results strongly suggest that the central feature of mind-wandering is its dynamics.