Literature DB >> 17727115

Typicality effects in face and object perception: further evidence for the attractor field model.

James W Tanaka1, Olivier Corneille.   

Abstract

In a previous study, it was shown that a 50/50 morph of a typical and an atypical parent face was perceived to be more similar to the atypical parent face than to the typical parent face (Tanaka, Giles, Kremen, & Simon, 1998). Experiments 1 and 2 examine face typicality effects in a same/different discrimination task in which typical or atypical faces and their 80%, 70%, 60%, and 50% morphs were presented sequentially (Experiment 1) or simultaneously (Experiment 2). The main finding was that in both modes of presentation, atypical morphs were more poorly discriminated than their corresponding typical morphs. In Experiment 3, typicality effects were extended to the perception of nonface objects; in this instance, it was found that 50/50 morphs of birds and cars were judged to be more similar to their atypical parents than to their typical parents. These results are consistent with an attractor field model, in which it is proposed that the perception of a face or object stimulus depends not only on its fit to an underlying representation, but also on the representation's location in the similarity space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17727115     DOI: 10.3758/bf03193919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  10 in total

1.  The preferred level of face categorization depends on discriminability.

Authors:  Christopher D'Lauro; James W Tanaka; Tim Curran
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-06

2.  Exploring the perceptual spaces of faces, cars and birds in children and adults.

Authors:  James W Tanaka; Tamara L Meixner; Justin Kantner
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2010-12-16

3.  Face and object discrimination in autism, and relationship to IQ and age.

Authors:  Pamela M Pallett; Shereen J Cohen; Karen R Dobkins
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2014-05

4.  Locating attractiveness in the face space: faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype.

Authors:  Timothy Potter; Olivier Corneille
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-06

5.  Relating visual to verbal semantic knowledge: the evaluation of object recognition in prosopagnosia.

Authors:  Jason J S Barton; Hashim Hanif; Sohi Ashraf
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 13.501

Review 6.  Visual adaptation and face perception.

Authors:  Michael A Webster; Donald I A MacLeod
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Why Some Faces won't be Remembered: Brain Potentials Illuminate Successful Versus Unsuccessful Encoding for Same-Race and Other-Race Faces.

Authors:  Heather D Lucas; Joan Y Chiao; Ken A Paller
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis.

Authors:  Gary Lupyan
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-03-08

9.  How category structure influences the perception of object similarity: the atypicality bias.

Authors:  James William Tanaka; Justin Kantner; Marni Bartlett
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-06-06

10.  Perception-driven dynamics of mimicry based on attractor field model.

Authors:  Jindřich Brejcha; Petr Tureček; Karel Kleisner
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 3.906

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.