Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(14)
These results showed that infants have a lower preference for intermediate faces.
Figure 1 a depicts three different types of stimuli: mothers, intermediate faces and strangers (an example).
Post hoc comparisons with a Bonferroni correction showed that the difference between mothers' faces and intermediate faces was significant, p < 0.001, and that the difference between strangers and intermediate faces was significant, p < 0.001.
The presentation was repeated twice with photographs of different strangers as the stimuli representing strangers and intermediate faces.
This explanation, however, seems less probable, as our preliminary observations with adult subjects indicated an uncanny rather than uninterested feeling to intermediate faces (see the electronic supplementary material).
To exclude the possibility that infants detect traces of morphing and avoid intermediate faces, we presented stimuli representing pairs of strangers.
Similar(46)
Furthermore, an intermediate face-centered cubic phase induced by powderization and transformed into a body-centered cubic phase by aging is reported.
Grain contact affinities determined for both 3-D Monte Carlo grain growth simulations and experimental serial sectioned grains show similar trends of high affinity for contact between few- and many-faced grains, avoidance of contact between grains in similar face classes, and random contact between grains of intermediate face classes and all other classes.
The infants saw three different pairs of stimuli: mother versus stranger, mother versus intermediate face and stranger versus intermediate face.
We evaluated infants' preferential viewing of three pairs of faces: mother versus stranger, mother versus intermediate face and stranger versus intermediate face.
Infants may avoid these mother-like strangers because the intermediate face elicits the personal aspect of the mother but fails to satisfy it.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com