Literature DB >> 21037176

Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces.

Rama Amishav1, Ruth Kimchi.   

Abstract

The relative contribution of componential and configural information to face perception is controversial. We addressed this issue in the present study by examining how componential information and configural information interact during face processing, using Garner's (1974) speeded classification paradigm. When classifying upright faces varying in components (eyes, nose, and mouth) and configural information (intereyes and nose-mouth spacing), observers could not selectively attend to components without being influenced by irrelevant variation in configural information, and vice versa, indicating that componential information and configural information are integral in upright face processing. Performance with inverted faces showed selective attention to components but not to configural information, implying dominance of componential information in processing inverted faces. When faces varied only in components, selective attention to different components was observed in upright and inverted faces, indicating that facial components are perceptually separable. These results provide strong evidence that integrality of componential and configural information, rather than the relative dominance of either, is the hallmark of upright face perception.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21037176     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.743

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  22 in total

1.  Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces.

Authors:  J E Murray; E Yong; G Rhodes
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2000-11

2.  When inverted faces are recognized: the role of configural information in face recognition.

Authors:  H Leder; V Bruce
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2000-05

3.  Perceptual integrality of sex and identity of faces: further evidence for the single-route hypothesis.

Authors:  Tzvi Ganel; Yonatan Goshen-Gottstein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis.

Authors:  Erin M Ingvalson; Michael J Wenger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-01

5.  On the costs and benefits of faces and words: process characteristics of feature search in highly meaningful stimuli.

Authors:  Michael J Wenger; James T Townsend
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence.

Authors:  A Freire; K Lee; L A Symons
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 7.  What is "special" about face perception?

Authors:  M J Farah; K D Wilson; M Drain; J N Tanaka
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion, and facial speech.

Authors:  S R Schweinberger; G R Soukup
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  What causes the face inversion effect?

Authors:  M J Farah; J W Tanaka; H M Drain
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data.

Authors:  Pia Rotshtein; Joy J Geng; Jon Driver; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.225

View more
  12 in total

1.  Holistic processing does not require configural variability.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Thomas J Palmeri; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-08

2.  Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model.

Authors:  Sam S Rakover
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-08

3.  The perception of a face can be greater than the sum of its parts.

Authors:  Jianhong Shen; Thomas J Palmeri
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06

4.  Garner interference is not solely driven by stimulus uncertainty.

Authors:  Devin M Burns
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-12

5.  Impaired holistic processing in congenital prosopagnosia.

Authors:  Galia Avidan; Michal Tanzer; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  The perception of a familiar face is no more than the sum of its parts.

Authors:  Jason M Gold; Jarrett D Barker; Shawn Barr; Jennifer L Bittner; Alexander Bratch; W Drew Bromfield; Roy A Goode; Mary Jones; Doori Lee; Aparna Srinath
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

7.  Modulation of Alpha Oscillations in the Human EEG with Facial Preference.

Authors:  Jae-Hwan Kang; Su Jin Kim; Yang Seok Cho; Sung-Phil Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Impaired holistic processing of left-right composite faces in congenital prosopagnosia.

Authors:  Tina T Liu; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Meanings, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Thomas J Palmeri; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-12

Review 10.  What can individual differences reveal about face processing?

Authors:  Galit Yovel; Jeremy B Wilmer; Brad Duchaine
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.