FACES 4.0 EDU Free Download
Ainoha Sistek
I have just updated two Apple watches to 10.0.1 and all of my watch faces except one have disappeared. They look to be still on my iPhone but I have not found an easy way to get them back on the watches. Does anyone know if this was intended by Apple because I think I have updated the software before without losing any of the faces. Is there a simple 'bluetooth' fix to this ?
All you need do is put your finger on the watch face and hold it there. The watch face will shrink and then you swipe the faces L or R until the face you want appears. When it does, tap the face and Bingo!!
Unfortunately after upgrading to the 10.1.1 I have lost all previous saved watch faces. The hold watch face fix has not brought back my pre update faces. Also the there is a very limited range of Modular ones that I prefer. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?
Press and hold your watch face in the middle. It will shrink. Once that happens scroll sideways; your selection of watch faces is there. When you scroll to the one you want, tap it. If this does not work, you will need to visit an Apple store. Good luck.
I started by creating a rectangle. Then used the push/pull tool to extrude the rectangle into a cube-like 3D shape. So I now have 6 faces. How do I convert these 6 faces into a solid? Just starting; help appreciated.
I use both my cellphone and my desktop computer screen to view zoom meetings, b/c I don't have a webcam or mic on my desktop but I like to see the screen larger than on my little cell. I use my cell for audio and for the camera. All was fine up until a month or so ago, when suddenly I could not see attendees' faces on the computer screen, but I see everyone just fine on my cellphone. Sometimes they will be like a green screen, other times like a ghostly image, half-visible. It happens both on the main screen, and in breakout rooms.
If someone shares their screen, I DO see that fine on the computer screen (like a YouTube or a website they may share). It's just the faces in the attendees' windows that I cannot see.
I DID attend another person's zoom last night and saw their faces perfectly, but in the majority of the zooms I attend, I cannot. I think I've updated my zoom on both devices. Don't know why this is happening, or how to fix. Help!!
Faces & Voices of Recovery advances recovery wellness efforts at every level. We connect, organize, and mobilize millions of faces and voices. Through collective efforts in recovery advocacy, community support, and education, we promote the right of every individual and family to recover from substance use disorder, while demonstrating the value and impact of long-term recovery.
Jakarta Faces defines an MVC framework for building user interfaces for web applications, including UI components, state management, event handling, input validation, page navigation, and support for internationalization and accessibility.
"These faces show how much something can hurt. This face [point to left-most face] shows no pain. The faces show more and more pain [point to each from left to right] up to this one. [point to right-most face] It shows very much pain. Point to the face that shows how much you hurt [right now]."
It has long been understood that the ventral visual stream of the human brain processes features of simulated human faces. Recently, specificity for real and interactive faces has been reported in lateral and dorsal visual streams, raising new questions regarding neural coding of interactive faces and lateral and dorsal face-processing mechanisms. We compare neural activity during two live interactive face-to-face conditions where facial features and tasks remain constant while the social contexts (in-person or on-line conditions) are varied. Current models of face processing do not predict differences in these two conditions as features do not vary. However, behavioral eye-tracking measures showed longer visual dwell times on the real face and also increased arousal as indicated by pupil diameters for the real face condition. Consistent with the behavioral findings, signal increases with functional near infrared spectroscopy, fNIRS, were observed in dorsal-parietal regions for the real faces and increased cross-brain synchrony was also found within these dorsal-parietal regions for the real In-person Face condition. Simultaneously, acquired electroencephalography, EEG, also showed increased theta power in real conditions. These neural and behavioral differences highlight the importance of natural, in-person, paradigms and social context for understanding live and interactive face processing in humans.
Current models of face processing do not predict differences between conditions where the facial features do not vary. Here, we test the specific hypothesis that social context (real and in-person vs. real and on-line) will increase measures of variables that contribute to real and in-person face processing relative to the on-line conditions. These measures include behavioral eye tracking and visual dwell times on the face (Schroeder, Wilson, Radman, Scharfman, & Lakatos, 2010) as well as arousal as indicated by pupil diameters (Beatty, 1982). Similarly, neural signals acquired by fNIRS in dorsal-parietal and lateral regions of interest would be expected to increase for the In-person condition if social cues were enhanced consistent with prior measures of live vs. simulated faces (Hirsch et al., 2022; Noah et al., 2020). These regions have also been associated with salience detection and visual guidance (Braddick, Atkinson, & Wattam-Bell, 2003; Gottlieb, Kusunoki, & Goldberg, 1998), and would predict increased coherence for the live-In-person condition due to the additional salience of a physically present partner. Finally, simultaneously acquired event related potentials (ERP) have been implicated in processing of facial features (Bentin, Allison, Puce, Perez, & McCarthy, 1996; Dubal, Foucher, Jouvent, & Nadel, 2011; Itier & Taylor, 2004; Pönkänen et al., 2011); and are not expected to differ in this experiment because the face features are common to both conditions. However, increases in theta power activity have been reported for cognitive and attentional processes (Ptak, Schnider, & Fellrath, 2017) as well as for processes associated with facial expressions (G. G. Knyazev, Slobodskoj-Plusnin, & Bocharov, 2009; Zhang, Wang, Luo, & Luo, 2012), and to the extent that cognitive, attentional, and expressive cues are enhanced during In-person conditions, an increase in theta power is expected.
The human face is a highly salient and well-studied object category thought to be processed by functionally connected nodes within face-specialized complexes of the ventral stream including occipital, parietal, and temporal lobes (Arcaro & Livingstone, 2021; Diamond & Carey, 1986; Engell & Haxby, 2007; Haxby, Gobbini, Furey, Ishai, & Pietrini, 2001; Haxby, Gobbini, Furey, Ishai, Schouten, et al., 2001; Haxby et al., 2000; Ishai et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2005; Kanwisher et al., 1997,1998; Tanaka & Farah, 1991). Accordingly, face-processing pathways are often assumed to include multiple regions with specializations for coding various aspects of face features (Chang & Tsao, 2017). However, this model is challenged to predict differences in visual pathways mediated by social context associated with the actual presence of a face vs. an on-line representation of the same actual face. In the case of this experiment, all social factors such as familiarity, gender subjective, biases, prior experience, associations, etc. were held constant since the partners were the same for both tasks, in-person and on-line. In addition to these common high-level social features, the live faces in both conditions shared common low-level facial features and differed only in the context of physical presence of the face even though the person was physically present in all conditions. Any observed differences raise impactful questions regarding the mechanisms of live social processes. Findings from this investigation suggest that differences occur at the visual sensing level (mean and standard variation of eye contact duration); the behavioral level (coherence and diameters of pupils); the electrocortical level (theta oscillations); the neuroimaging level (contrast between in-person and on-line faces); and the dyadic neural coupling level (coherence between neural signals in the dorsal parietal regions). Consistent with the constellation of these multi-modal findings, an increase in the neural coupling of the dorsal visual stream between somatosensory association cortices during in-person face processing suggests that the exchange of social cues is greater for the In-person condition and that these mechanisms are associated with dorsal stream activity. These multi-modal findings enrich the foundation for further development of dyadic models for face processing in live and natural conditions.
The findings are consistent with separable neuroprocessing pathways for live faces presented in-person and for the same live faces presented over virtual media. First, at the visual acquisition level, longer dwell times on the face and reduced horizontal positional variation were observed for the live partner, suggesting that visual sensing mechanisms were more stable with longer durations between eye movements for live in-person faces. Pupil diameters were generally larger for in-person faces than for virtual faces, suggesting increased arousal for in-person faces; in addition, the magnitudes of the pupil responses were reciprocated by partners within dyads consistent with dyadic interactions. Both conditions produced the expected negative peak in the event-related EEG signal at approximately 170 ms after the stimulus onset, N170, which is a hallmark for early face processing and not expected to differ between these two conditions. Theta oscillations (4-8 Hz), previously associated with face processing (Balconi & Lucchiari, 2006; Dravida et al., 2019; Engell & Haxby, 2007; González-Roldan et al., 2011; Güntekin & Başar, 2014; G. Knyazev, Slobodskoj-Plusnin, & Bocharov, 2009; Miyakoshi, Kanayama, Iidaka, & Ohira, 2010; Pitcher, Dilks, Saxe, Triantafyllou, & Kanwisher, 2011; Zhang et al., 2012), were higher for the In-person Face condition, suggesting an early frequency band separation of live in-person face processes relative to live Virtual Face processes. Consistent with these visual sensing, behavioral, and electrocortical findings, neuroimaging findings indicated separable patterns of activity for the two conditions. Specifically, activity for the [In-person Face > Virtual on-line Face] contrast included increases in bilateral dorsal parietal regions. This divergence of pathways for live In-person vs. live Virtual on-line formats underscores the importance of ecological and social context in natural face processing.
582128177f