A Review and Clarification of the Terms “holistic,” “configural,” and “relational” in the Face Perception Literature

Abstract

It is widely agreed that the human face is processed differently from other objects. However there is a lack of consensus on what is meant by a wide array of terms used to describe this “special” face processing (e.g., holistic and configural) and the perceptually relevant information within a face (e.g., relational properties and configuration). This paper will review existing models of holistic/configural processing, discuss how they differ from one another conceptually, and review the wide variety of measures used to tap into these concepts. In general we favor a model where holistic processing of a face includes some or all of the interrelations between features and has separate coding for features. However, some aspects of the model remain unclear. We propose the use of moving faces as a way of clarifying what types of information are included in the holistic representation of a face.

Holistic processing of static and moving faces.

“…Alternatively, the contribution of rigid motion to holistic processing may be overshadowed by more salient cues supporting holistic face processing. Rigid motion provides additional Gestalt cues for grouping facial parts together (Piepers & Robbins, 2012;Wagemans et al, 2012), which should facilitate holistic processing according to the dual-route hypothesis (Curby et al, 2016;Curby et al, 2013;Zhao et al, 2016aZhao et al, , 2016b. However, such facilitation may be less evident when holistic processing can be activated by more influential factors (e.g., those provided by normal upright faces and expertise with them), which leaves little room for facial motion to further enhance holistic processing.…”

“…When faces move in a natural and synchronized way (e.g., rigid facial motion as used in the present study, or dynamic facial expressions as used in Favelle et al, 2015), then facial motion should facilitate holistic face processing (see also Piepers & Robbins, 2012). Such motion encourages the grouping of facial parts together based on Gestalt principles of common fate and synchrony (Alais et al, 1998;Lee & Blake, 1999;Wagemans et al, 2012) or based on learned attention to whole faces in discriminating facial expressions (Calder et al, 2000;Chua et al, 2015).…”

“…Moreover, since front, quarter, and profile views of static faces are all processed holistically (McKone, 2008), it is not likely that they would no longer elicit holistic processing when they are presented sequentially (i.e., forming rigid motion). On the contrary, by moving all facial parts in a natural and synchronized way, rigid motion may potentially reinforce the perceptual grouping of facial parts via Gestalt principles of common fate and synchrony (Alais, Blake, & Lee, 1998;Lee & Blake, 1999;Piepers & Robbins, 2012;Wagemans et al, 2012).…”

“…Answers to these questions will not only help reconcile the discrepancies between mixed findings about holistic processing of moving faces, but they will also help address one fundamental question about current theories of holistic processing-whether they can be generalized to moving stimuli or apply only to static faces and objects. Moreover, determining whether holistic and part-based processing are similarly involved between static and rigidly moving faces may also help clarify what is holistic representation of faces (McKone & Yovel, 2009;Piepers & Robbins, 2012;Rossion, 2013) and what type of facial information underlies holistic processing (Rossion, 2013;Zhao et al, 2016b). …”

The development of face expertise: Evidence for a qualitative change in processing

“…While researchers may not entirely understand what drives expertise in face recognition, there is consensus that faces are processed differently to objects and this is likely due to some form of configural processing (Piepers & Robbins, 2012). There are many sources of evidence to suggest that expert processing is not based on second-order relational information (Burton, Schweinberger, Jenkins, & Kaufmann, 2015) but is based on this final form of configural processing, known as holistic processing (Hole, George, Eaves, & Rasek, 2002;Mondloch & Desjarlais, 2010).…”