Literature DB >> 24961957

Reliability of composite-task measurements of holistic face processing.

David A Ross1, Jennifer J Richler, Isabel Gauthier.   

Abstract

There is growing interest in the study of individual differences in face recognition, including one of its hallmarks, holistic processing, which can be defined as a failure of selective attention to parts. These efforts demand that researchers be aware of, and try to maximize, the reliability of their measurements. Here we report on the reliability of measurements using the composite task (complete design), a measure of holistic processing that has been shown to have relatively good validity. Several studies have used the composite task to investigate individual differences, yet only one study has discussed its reliability. We investigate the reliability of composite-task measurements in eight data sets from five different samples of subjects. In general, we found reliability to be fairly low, but there was substantial variability across experiments. Researchers should keep in mind that reliability is a property of measurements, not of a task, and think about the ways in which measurements in a particular task may be improved before embarking on individual differences research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24961957      PMCID: PMC4276735          DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0497-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  29 in total

1.  Test-retest reliability of the emotional stroop task: examining the paradox of measurement change.

Authors:  P Eide; A Kemp; R B Silberstein; P J Nathan; C Stough
Journal:  J Psychol       Date:  2002-09

2.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants.

Authors:  Brad Duchaine; Ken Nakayama
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  The evidence rejects the expertise hypothesis: reply to Gauthier & Bukach.

Authors:  Elinor McKone; Rachel Robbins
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-07-13

Review 4.  Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?

Authors:  Elinor McKone; Nancy Kanwisher; Bradley C Duchaine
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Revisiting the role of spatial frequencies in the holistic processing of faces.

Authors:  Olivia S Cheung; Jennifer J Richler; Thomas J Palmeri; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Why does selective attention to parts fail in face processing?

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; James W Tanaka; Danielle D Brown; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 7.  A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Perceptual Expertise as a Shift from Strategic Interference to Automatic Holistic Processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Yetta K Wong; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-04-15

9.  Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability.

Authors:  Ruosi Wang; Jingguang Li; Huizhen Fang; Moqian Tian; Jia Liu
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-01-05

10.  Holistic processing predicts face recognition.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Olivia S Cheung; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-03-10
View more
  19 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.  About-face on face recognition ability and holistic processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; R Jackie Floyd; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Individual differences in object recognition.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Andrew J Tomarken; Mackenzie A Sunday; Timothy J Vickery; Kaitlin F Ryan; R Jackie Floyd; David Sheinberg; Alan C-N Wong; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  The Vanderbilt holistic face processing test: a short and reliable measure of holistic face processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; R Jackie Floyd; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 5.  The composite face illusion.

Authors:  Jennifer Murphy; Katie L H Gray; Richard Cook
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-04

6.  Different measures of holistic face processing tap into distinct but partially overlapping mechanisms.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutet; Elizabeth A Nelson; Nicholas Watier; Denis Cousineau; Sébastien Béland; Charles A Collin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Global precedence effects account for individual differences in both face and object recognition performance.

Authors:  Christian Gerlach; Randi Starrfelt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-08

8.  The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.

Authors:  Craig Hedge; Georgina Powell; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2018-06

9.  Robust is not necessarily reliable: From within-subjects fMRI contrasts to between-subjects comparisons.

Authors:  Zachary P Infantolino; Katherine R Luking; Colin L Sauder; John J Curtin; Greg Hajcak
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Holistic Processing in the Composite Task Depends on Face Size.

Authors:  David A Ross; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2015-06-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.