Literature DB >> 31939041

Discrimination and recognition of faces with changed configuration.

Adam Sandford1, Markus Bindemann2.   

Abstract

Subtle metric differences in facial configuration, such as between-person variation in the distances between the eyes, have been used widely in psychology to explain face recognition. However, these studies of configuration have typically utilized unfamiliar faces rather than the familiar faces that the process of recognition ultimately seeks to explain. This study investigates whether face recognition relies on the metric information presumed in configural theory, by manipulating the interocular distance in both unfamiliar and familiar faces. In Experiment 1, observers were asked to detect which face in a pair was presented with its configuration intact. In Experiment 2, this discrimination task was repeated with faces presented individually, and observers were also asked to make familiarity categorizations to the same stimuli. In both experiments, familiarity determined detection of faces in their original configuration, and also enhanced identity categorization in Experiment 2. However, discrimination of configuration was generally low. In turn, recognition accuracy was generally high irrespective of configuration condition. Moreover, observers most sensitive to configuration during discrimination did not appear to rely on this information for recognition of familiar faces. These results demonstrate that configuration theory provides limited explanatory power for the recognition of familiar faces.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Configuration; Face; Recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31939041     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-01010-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  46 in total

1.  A sideways look at configural encoding: two different effects of face rotation.

Authors:  Michael B Lewis; Thomas E Glenister
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 2.  Mental representations of familiar faces.

Authors:  A Mike Burton; Rob Jenkins; Stefan R Schweinberger
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2011-06-14

3.  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 4.  Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition.

Authors:  A Mike Burton; Stefan R Schweinberger; Rob Jenkins; Jürgen M Kaufmann
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2015-07

5.  Recognizing Facial Slivers.

Authors:  Sharon Gilad-Gutnick; Elia Samuel Harmatz; Kleovoulos Tsourides; Galit Yovel; Pawan Sinha
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Recognition of Deformed Familiar Faces: Contrast Negation and Nonglobal Stretching.

Authors:  Adam Sandford; Skylar Rego
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability.

Authors:  A Mike Burton
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.143

Review 8.  Stable face representations.

Authors:  Rob Jenkins; A Mike Burton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Michael L Mack; Isabel Gauthier; Thomas J Palmeri
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Recognizing "Bella Swan" and "Hermione Granger": No Own-Race Advantage in Recognizing Photos of Famous Faces.

Authors:  Xiaomei Zhou; Catherine J Mondloch
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 1.490

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.