Literature DB >> 24578162

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

Artyom Zinchenko1, Hyojung Kim, Adrian Danek, Hermann J Müller, Dragan Rangelov.   

Abstract

There is evidence that the cognitive system processes human faces faster and more precisely than other stimuli. Also, faces summon visual attention in an automatic manner, as evidenced by efficient, 'pop-out' search for face targets amongst homogeneous non-face distractors. Pop-out for faces implies that faces are processed as a basic visual 'feature' by specialized face-tuned detectors, similar to the coding of other features (e.g., color, orientation, motion, etc.). However, it is unclear whether such face detectors encode only the global face configuration or both global and local face features. If the former were correct, the face detectors should be unable to support search for a local face feature, rendering search slower relative to non-face stimuli; that is, there would be local feature suppression (LFS) for faces. If the latter was the case, there should be no difference in the processing of local and, respectively, global face features. In two experiments, participants discerned the presence (vs. absence) of a local target defined as a part of either a normal or a scrambled (schematic or realistic) face or of a non-face (Kanizsa diamond or realistic house) configuration. The results consistently showed a robust LFS effect in both reaction times and error rates for face stimuli, and either no difference or even a local feature enhancement effect for the control stimuli. Taken together, these findings indicate that faces are encoded as a basic visual feature by means of globally tuned face detectors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24578162     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0548-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  31 in total

1.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe; K R Cave; S L Franzel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  At first sight: a high-level pop out effect for faces.

Authors:  Orit Hershler; Shaul Hochstein
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Faces retain attention.

Authors:  Markus Bindemann; A Mike Burton; Ignace T C Hooge; Rob Jenkins; Edward H F de Haan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-12

4.  With a careful look: still no low-level confound to face pop-out.

Authors:  Orit Hershler; Shaul Hochstein
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area.

Authors:  N Kanwisher; F Tong; K Nakayama
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1998-08

6.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries.

Authors:  A Treisman; S Gormican
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Faces and facial expressions do not pop out.

Authors:  H C Nothdurft
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  The role of fear and expectancies in capture of covert attention by spiders.

Authors:  Christel Devue; Artem V Belopolsky; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2011-08

9.  First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face.

Authors:  Janine Willis; Alexander Todorov
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-07

10.  Is high-spatial frequency information used in the early stages of face detection?

Authors:  H Halit; M de Haan; P G Schyns; M H Johnson
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-09-26       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  1 in total

1.  Neurophysiological Correlates of Featural and Spacing Processing for Face and Non-face Stimuli.

Authors:  Marcello Negrini; Diandra Brkić; Sara Pizzamiglio; Isabella Premoli; Davide Rivolta
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-03-13
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.