Literature DB >> 16307958

Capacity limits for face processing.

Markus Bindemann1, A Mike Burton, Rob Jenkins.   

Abstract

We present three experiments in which subjects were asked to make speeded sex judgements (Experiment 1) or semantic judgements (Experiments 2 and 3) to face targets and nonface items, while ignoring a solitary flanking distractor face or a nonface stimulus. Distractors could be either congruent (same response category) or incongruent (different response category) with the target. Distractor congruency effects were consistently observed in all combinations of target-distractor stimulus pairs, except when a distractor face flanked a target face. The failure to find congruency effects in this condition was explored further in a fourth experiment, in which four task-irrelevant flankers were simultaneously presented. Once again, no face-face congruency effects were found, even though comparison distractors interfered with face and nonface targets alike. However, four simultaneously presented distractor faces did not interfere with nonface targets either. We suggest that these experiments demonstrate a capacity limit for visual processing in these conditions, such that no more than one face is processed at a time.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16307958     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  18 in total

1.  Race and gender of faces can be ignored.

Authors:  Janice E Murray; Liana Machado; Benjamin Knight
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-10-15

2.  When two faces are not better than one: Serial limited-capacity processing with redundant-target faces.

Authors:  Daniel Fitousi
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Local feature suppression effect in face and non-face stimuli.

Authors:  Artyom Zinchenko; Hyojung Kim; Adrian Danek; Hermann J Müller; Dragan Rangelov
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-01

4.  Visual search efficiency is greater for human faces compared to animal faces.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Simpson; Haley L Husband; Krysten Yee; Alison Fullerton; Krisztina V Jakobsen
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2014

5.  Working memory load for faces modulates P300, N170, and N250r.

Authors:  Helen M Morgan; Christoph Klein; Stephan G Boehm; Kimron L Shapiro; David E J Linden
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Resource Dependent Effects During Sex Categorization.

Authors:  L Omar Rivera; Clarissa J Arms-Chavez; Michael A Zárate
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2009-07-01

7.  Ignored faces produce figural face aftereffects.

Authors:  Janice E Murray; Madeline Judge; Yan Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-21       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Attentional modulation of emotional conflict processing with flanker tasks.

Authors:  Pingyan Zhou; Xun Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Famous faces demand attention due to reduced inhibitory processing.

Authors:  Liana Machado; Hayley Guiney; Andrew Mitchell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Sensory competition in the face processing areas of the human brain.

Authors:  Krisztina Nagy; Mark W Greenlee; Gyula Kovács
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.