The African face (left) and the European face (right) have the same average luminance and are closely matched in size (e.g., in Experiment 2: mean pixels’ brightness or L_mean = 112.5, <i>SD</i> = 41, in HSL/RGB coordinates).

<p>Because the perceived difference in skin tone persists even after the observer is informed that the two face images deliver the same average intensity of light to the eyes, such a visual demonstration has been included in the “library” of optical illusions and it is often referred to as the <i>Face Race Illusion</i> (source: “Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: the role of race categories,” by Daniel T. Levin and Mahzarin R. Banaji, 2006, <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology</i>: <i>General</i>, vol. 1358:4).</p

Mean % fixation durations (Y axis) or dwell time within different faces parts (Eyes, Nose) when viewing the upright African face (blue) and European face (red).

<p>Error bars represent Standard Errors.</p

Timeline of one trial in Experiment 2: Participants maintained gaze within the red ellipse at all times.

<p>The red ellipse worked as a cue for keeping gaze (every 4 secs) within one of the regions containing only one of the two faces. A trial began with a neutral blank gray image, equiluminant to the average brightness of the successive faces image, and serving as a baseline image to compute pupil changes in an event-related manner (by subtracting the mean pupil diameter during viewing of each baseline image from the mean pupil diameter when subsequently attending a face stimulus).</p

Mean % fixation durations (Y axis) within different Faces regions (AOI) for the three groups of participants when viewing each upright face: Africans (blue columns), Asians (red columns), and Europeans (green columns).

<p>Error bars represent Standard Errors. In the inlay the face regions corresponding to each AOI (the colors are arbitrary) are shown superimposed to the “African” face.</p

Local regions of brightness difference between the African and European face stimuli used in Experiment 2.

<p>Brighter regions indicate more luminance in the African’s than the European’s facial image.</p

Experiment 3: Mean % accuracy in judging the African face as either brighter or darker or of same brightness as the European face.

<p>Bars represent standard errors.</p

Experiment 1.

<p>Analyses of choices in the lightness comparison task.</p

The "face race lightness illusion": An effect of the eyes and pupils? - Fig 7

<p>Left panels: Mean baseline-corrected pupillary diameters of Asian participants (Top panel; N = 24), European participants (Middle panel; N = 38) and African participants (Bottom panel; N = 22), evolving over a time period of 4 seconds from onset of the cue around a face, i.e. while attending the “African” face (red line) or the “European” face (blue line). The colored stripes indicate 95% confidence intervals for within-subject comparisons. Right panels: Functional t -tests of the difference between pupils when attending to the African versus European face. The solid (red) horizontal lines represent the two-tailed critical value for t.</p

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.</p