Literature DB >> 17076068

Information processing during face recognition: the effects of familiarity, inversion, and morphing on scanning fixations.

Jason J S Barton1, Nathan Radcliffe, Mariya V Cherkasova, Jay Edelman, James M Intriligator.   

Abstract

Where we make ocular fixations when viewing an object likely reflects interactions between 'external' object properties and internal 'top-down' factors, as our perceptual system tests hypotheses and attempts to make decisions about our environment. These scanning fixation patterns can tell us how and where the visual system gathers information critical to specific tasks. We determined the effects of the internal factors of expertise, experience, and ambiguity on scanning during a face-recognition task, in eight subjects. To assess the effects of expertise, we compared upright with inverted faces, since it is hypothesized that inverted faces do not access an orientation-dependent face-expert processor. To assess the effects of experience, we compared famous with novel faces, as famous faces would have stronger internal representations than anonymous ones. Ambiguity in matching seen and remembered faces was manipulated with morphed faces. We measured three classes of variables: (i) total scanning time and fixations; (ii) the spatial distribution of scanning; and (iii) the sequence of scanning, using first-order Markov matrices for local scan structure and string editing for global scan structure. We found that, with inverted faces, subjects redistributed fixations to the mouth and lower face, and their local and global scan structure became more random. With novel or morphed faces, they scanned the eyes and upper face more. Local scan structure was not affected by familiarity, but global scan structure was least random (most stereotyped) for novel upright faces. We conclude that expertise (upright faces) leads to less lower-face scanning and more predictable global patterns of information gathering. Experience (famous faces) leads to less upper-face scanning and more idiosyncratic global scan structures, suggesting a superseding influence of facial memories. With morphed faces, subjects return to the upper face to resolve ambiguity, implying a greater importance of this region in face recognition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17076068     DOI: 10.1068/p5547

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  60 in total

1.  Factors contributing to the adaptation aftereffects of facial expression.

Authors:  Andrea Butler; Ipek Oruc; Christopher J Fox; Jason J S Barton
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-11-12       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  The effect of varying talker identity and listening conditions on gaze behavior during audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Julie N Buchan; Martin Paré; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2008-06-28       Impact factor: 3.252

3.  Gaze patterns during identity and emotion judgments in hearing adults and deaf users of American Sign Language.

Authors:  Susan M Letourneau; Teresa V Mitchell
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  Face Pareidolia in the Rhesus Monkey.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; Susan G Wardle; Molly Flessert; David A Leopold; Leslie G Ungerleider
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Dog owners show experience-based viewing behaviour in judging dog face approachability.

Authors:  Carla Jade Gavin; Sarah Houghton; Kun Guo
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-10-20

6.  The Thatcher illusion in humans and monkeys.

Authors:  Christoph D Dahl; Nikos K Logothetis; Heinrich H Bülthoff; Christian Wallraven
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: a new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing.

Authors:  Dan Nemrodov; Thomas Anderson; Frank F Preston; Roxane J Itier
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  The categories, frequencies, and stability of idiosyncratic eye-movement patterns to faces.

Authors:  Joseph Arizpe; Vincent Walsh; Galit Yovel; Chris I Baker
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Learning optimal eye movements to unusual faces.

Authors:  Matthew F Peterson; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Looking just below the eyes is optimal across face recognition tasks.

Authors:  Matthew F Peterson; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.