Automatic Aspects in Face Perception
Evidence From Mandatory Processing of Distractor Facial Components
Abstract
We examined the perceptual dependency of local facial information on the whole facial context. In Experiment 1 participants matched a predetermined facial feature that appeared in two sequentially presented faces judging whether it is identical or not, while ignoring an irrelevant dimension in the faces. This irrelevant dimension was either (a) compatible or incompatible with the target’s response and (b) same or different in either featural characteristics or metric distance between facial features in the two faces. A compatibility effect was observed for upright but not inverted faces, regardless of the type of change that differentiated between the faces in the irrelevant dimension. Even when the target was presented upright in the inverted faces, to attenuate perceptual load, no compatibility effect was found (Experiment 2). Finally, no compatibility effects were found for either upright or inverted houses (Experiment 3). These findings suggest that holistic face perception is mandatory.
References
(2008). Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?. Visual Cognition, 16, 754–784.
(1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–316.
(2003). What are the routes to face recognition?. In , Perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 21–52). New York: Oxford University Press.
(2003). Attending to faces: Change detection, familiarization, and inversion effects. Perception, 32, 15–28.
(1999a). What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 99–104.
(1999b). Unconsciously controlled processing: The Stroop effect reconsidered. Pyschonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 449–455.
(1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 221–225.
(1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
(2007). The control of attention to faces. Journal of Vision, 7(10), 1–8.
(2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429–433.
(1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children?. Visual Cognition, 1, 253–274.
(2008). Revisiting the role of spatial frequencies in the holistic processing of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1327–1336.
(1999). Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 115–120.
(2007). Holistic face processing is mature at 4 years of age: Evidence from the composite face effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 57–70.
(1998). Is object recognition automatic?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 496–503.
(1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
(2006). Selecting and ignoring the component features of a visual object: A negative priming paradigm. Visual Cognition, 14, 584–618.
(2004). Visual agnosia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1995). What causes the face inversion effect?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628–634.
(1995). The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms. Vision Research, 35, 2089–2093.
(1998). What is “special” about face perception?. Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
(2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159–170.
(2003). Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 428–432.
(2002). Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 431–446.
(2006). Faces are “spatial” – Holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1023–1039.
(1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74.
(2007). Houses and textures: Investigating the characteristics of inversion effects. Vision Research, 47, 3350–3359.
(2002). Long-term effects of covert face recognition. Cognition, 86, B43–B52.
(2003). Ignoring famous faces: Category-specific dilution of distractor interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 298–309.
(2005). Recognition memory for distractor faces depends on attentional load at exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 314–320.
(1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.
(2000). Not to be and then to be: Visual representation of ignored unfamiliar faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 246–263.
(2003). Relative dominance of holistic and component properties in the perceptual organization of visual objects. In , Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 235–267). New York: Oxford University Press.
(1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 451–468.
(2000). Selective attention and cognitive control: Dissociating attentional functions through different types of load. In , Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 175–194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.
(1997). On the efficiency of attentional selection: Efficient visual search results in inefficient rejection of distraction. Psychological Science, 8, 395–398.
(2003). The role of perceptual load in processing distractor faces. Psychological Science, 14, 510–515.
(1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A. Human Experimental Psychology, 51, 449–473.
(2000). When inverted faces are recognised: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A. Human Experimental Psychology, 53, 513–536.
(2001). Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception, 30, 73–83.
(2001). Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.
(2004). Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation. Psychological Science, 15, 762–768.
(2009). Perception of face parts and face configurations: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
(1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
(2007). The concept of inhibition in cognition. In , Inhibition in cognition (pp. 3–23). Washington: American Psychological Association.
(1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
(2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
(2007). Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1438–1451.
(2009). Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 778–797.
(2006). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of our own race. Psychological Science, 17, 608–615.
(2000). Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11, 492–496.
(2006). Selective attention to specific features within objects: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 539–561.
(2007). Are you always on my mind? A review of how face perception and attention interact. Neuropsychologia, 45, 75–92.
, E-prime (version 1.0b) [Computer Software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools.
(2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1–30.
(1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, 43–63.
(1993). What’s lost in inverted faces?. Cognition, 47, 25–57.
(2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences, 271, S448–S450.
(2006). Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 32, 1385–1394.
(2003). Configural information is processed differently in the perception and recognition of faces. Vision Research, 43, 1501–1505.
(1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 904–915.
(2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14, 391–396.
(1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
(1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 901–913.
(1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.
(1997). Faces and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.
(1980). Margaret Thatcher – A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483–484.
(1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471–491.
(2001). Effects of attention and emotion on face processing in the human brain: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron, 30, 829–841.
(2004). A unique look at face processing: The impact of masked faces on the processing of facial features. Cognition, 91, 155–172.
(1986). Face-name interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 466–475.
(1987). Configural information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
(2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 1–20.
(2008). The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 933–939.
