Literature DB >> 25367141

Holistic processing does not require configural variability.

Jennifer J Richler1, Thomas J Palmeri, Isabel Gauthier.   

Abstract

Using the Garner speeded classification task, Amishav and Kimchi (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 743-748, 2010) found that participants could selectively attend to face features: Classifying faces based on the shape of the eyes was not influenced by task-irrelevant variation in the shape of the mouth, and vice versa. This result contrasts with a large body of work using another selective attention task, the composite task, in which participants are unable to selectively attend to face parts: Same/different judgments for one-half of a composite face are influenced by the same/different status of the task-irrelevant half of that composite face. In Amishav and Kimchi, faces all shared a common configuration of face features. By contrast, configuration is typically never controlled in the composite task. We asked whether failures of selective attention observed in the composite task are caused by faces varying in both features and configuration. In two experiments, we found that participants exhibited failures of selective attention to face parts in the composite task even when configuration was held constant, which is inconsistent with Amishav and Kimchi's conclusion that face features can be processed independently unless configuration varies. Although both measure failures of selective attention, the Garner task and composite task appear to measure different mechanisms involved in holistic face perception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25367141      PMCID: PMC5034356          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0756-5

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


  20 in total

1.  Inverted faces are (eventually) processed holistically.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Michael L Mack; Thomas J Palmeri; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception.

Authors:  Bruno Rossion
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2008-04-08

Review 3.  Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing.

Authors:  Elinor McKone; Galit Yovel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10

4.  Holistic processing of impossible objects: evidence from Garner's speeded-classification task.

Authors:  Erez Freud; Galia Avidan; Tzvi Ganel
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 5.  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

6.  General holistic impairment in congenital prosopagnosia: evidence from Garner's speeded-classification task.

Authors:  Michal Tanzer; Erez Freud; Tzvi Ganel; Galia Avidan
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Configurational information in face perception.

Authors:  A W Young; D Hellawell; D C Hay
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  Stroop can occur without Garner interference: strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli.

Authors:  C Van Leeuwen; L Bakker
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-04

9.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice.

Authors:  R D Melara; J R Mounts
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-09

10.  Does response interference contribute to face composite effects?

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Olivia S Cheung; Alan C-N Wong; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-04
View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.