Literature DB >> 15462634

Face recognition is affected by similarity in spatial frequency range to a greater degree than within-category object recognition.

Charles A Collin1, Chang Hong Liu, Nikolaus F Troje, Patricia A McMullen, Avi Chaudhuri.   

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that face identification is more sensitive to variations in spatial frequency content than object recognition, but none have compared how sensitive the 2 processes are to variations in spatial frequency overlap (SFO). The authors tested face and object matching accuracy under varying SFO conditions. Their results showed that object recognition was more robust to SFO variations than face recognition and that the vulnerability of faces was not due to reliance on configural processing. They suggest that variations in sensitivity to SFO help explain the vulnerability of face recognition to changes in image format and the lack of a middle-frequency advantage in object recognition. (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15462634     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.975

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  13 in total

1.  Neural microgenesis of personally familiar face recognition.

Authors:  Meike Ramon; Luca Vizioli; Joan Liu-Shuang; Bruno Rossion
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The face inversion effect in infants is driven by high, and not low, spatial frequencies.

Authors:  Karen R Dobkins; Rachael Harms
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Perceptual expertise with objects predicts another hallmark of face perception.

Authors:  Rankin Williams McGugin; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-04-27       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Coarse-to-fine encoding of spatial frequency information into visual short-term memory for faces but impartial decay.

Authors:  Zaifeng Gao; Shlomo Bentin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Face or building superiority in peripheral vision reversed by task requirements.

Authors:  Najate Jebara; Delphine Pins; Pascal Despretz; Muriel Boucart
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2009-09-08

6.  Sensitivity to spatial frequency and orientation content is not specific to face perception.

Authors:  N Rankin Williams; Verena Willenbockel; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Stimulus type, level of categorization, and spatial-frequencies utilization: implications for perceptual categorization hierarchies.

Authors:  Assaf Harel; Shlomo Bentin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  FIAEs in Famous Faces are Mediated by Type of Processing.

Authors:  Peter J Hills; Michael B Lewis
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-08-01

9.  From coarse to fine? Spatial and temporal dynamics of cortical face processing.

Authors:  Valerie Goffaux; Judith Peters; Julie Haubrechts; Christine Schiltz; Bernadette Jansma; Rainer Goebel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 5.357

10.  The part task of the part-spacing paradigm is not a pure measurement of part-based information of faces.

Authors:  Qi Zhu; Xiaobai Li; Kari Chow; Jia Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.