Literature DB >> 9852665

Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition.

J Tanaka1, M Giles, S Kremen, V Simon.   

Abstract

A familiar face can be recognized across many changes in the stimulus input. In this research, the many-to-one mapping of face stimuli to a single face memory is referred to as a face memory's 'attractor field'. According to the attractor field approach, a face memory will be activated by any stimuli falling within the boundaries of its attractor field. It was predicted that by virtue of its location in a multi-dimensional face space, the attractor field of an atypical face will be larger than the attractor field of a typical face. To test this prediction, subjects make likeness judgments to morphed faces that contained a 50/50 contribution from an atypical and a typical parent face. The main result of four experiments was that the morph face was judged to bear a stronger resemblance to the atypical face parent than the typical face parent. The computational basis of the atypicality bias was demonstrated in a neural network simulation where morph inputs of atypical and typical representations elicited stronger activation of atypical output units than of typical output units. Together, the behavioral and simulation evidence supports the view that the attractor fields of atypical faces span over a broader region of face space that the attractor fields of typical faces.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9852665     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00048-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  14 in total

1.  Asymmetries in categorization, perceptual discrimination, and visual search for reference and nonreference exemplars.

Authors:  Olivier Corneille; Robert L Goldstone; Sarah Queller; Timothy Potter
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-04

2.  Exploring the perceptual spaces of faces, cars and birds in children and adults.

Authors:  James W Tanaka; Tamara L Meixner; Justin Kantner
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2010-12-16

3.  Locating attractiveness in the face space: faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype.

Authors:  Timothy Potter; Olivier Corneille
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-06

4.  The face-sensitive N170 encodes social category information.

Authors:  Jonathan B Freeman; Nalini Ambady; Phillip J Holcomb
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 1.837

5.  Visualizing search behavior with adaptive discriminations.

Authors:  Robert G Cook; Muhammad A J Qadri
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2013-12-25       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 6.  Visual adaptation and face perception.

Authors:  Michael A Webster; Donald I A MacLeod
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Why Some Faces won't be Remembered: Brain Potentials Illuminate Successful Versus Unsuccessful Encoding for Same-Race and Other-Race Faces.

Authors:  Heather D Lucas; Joan Y Chiao; Ken A Paller
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  How category structure influences the perception of object similarity: the atypicality bias.

Authors:  James William Tanaka; Justin Kantner; Marni Bartlett
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-06-06

9.  Perception-driven dynamics of mimicry based on attractor field model.

Authors:  Jindřich Brejcha; Petr Tureček; Karel Kleisner
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 3.906

10.  The other in me: interpersonal multisensory stimulation changes the mental representation of the self.

Authors:  Ana Tajadura-Jiménez; Stephanie Grehl; Manos Tsakiris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.