Configural information is processed differently in perception and recognition of faces

Schwaninger, Adrian; Ryf, Stefan; Hofer, Franziska

doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00171-8

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rakover (1999) found that in certain cases, the inversion of Thatcherized and scrambled faces in which the configural relations were changed not only did not decrease the degree of strangeness of the faces, but it even increased it-a finding that does not accord with the configural-processing hypothesis (see also Bruyer, 2011). Schwaninger, Ryf, and Hofer (2003) found that the geometrical horizontal-vertical (H-V) illusion in a face resists inversion. (The H-V illusion refers to a visual form in the shape of a T in which the horizontal line is perceived as being shorter than the vertical line, although the two lines are of equal length.)…”

Section: A Necessary and A Sufficient Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The face-inversion effect (FIE) can be viewed as being based on two kinds of findings. According to the face (UI) effect, perception and recognition are better for faces presented upright (U) than for faces presented inverted (I). According to the face/object(UI) effect, inversion impairs the processing of faces more than the processing of nonfacial objects (e.g., buildings or cars). Part I of this article focuses on the face(UI) effect and the configural-processing hypothesis, which is considered the most popular explanatory hypothesis of the FIE. In this hypothesis, it is proposed that inversion impairs the processing of configural information (the spatial relations between features) but hardly (if at all) impairs the processing of featural information (e.g., eyes, nose, and mouth). Part II of the article starts from the conclusion reached in part I, that the configural-processing hypothesis has not succeeded in explaining a substantial number of the findings and in resolving certain theoretical problems. The part then goes on to outline a new alternative model, the face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model, which contends with these theoretical problems, accounts for the configural-processing hypothesis, succeeds in explaining a considerable portion of the empirical findings related to the face(UI) effect, and proposes a relatively new research program on the concept of the face scheme. The basic assumption of the FSI model is that schemes and prototypes are involved in processing a visual stimulus of a face and in transforming it to a "meaning-bearing" face, and that different schemes are involved if the face is presented upright or inverted.

show abstract

Section: A Necessary and A Sufficient Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the work of Schwaninger, Ryf & Hofer (2003) demonstrated that whereas people are very sensitive in detecting configural differences, configural information is not perceived veridically, but is instead overestimated by 11-41 per cent. In fact, inversion strongly impairs configural processing in detection and recognition tasks, but the perception of configural information is much less orientation-sensitive (Schwaninger, Ryf & Hofer, 2003).…”

Section: Configural Processing In Childhoodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, inversion strongly impairs configural processing in detection and recognition tasks, but the perception of configural information is much less orientation-sensitive (Schwaninger, Ryf & Hofer, 2003). Thus, the methodology used in different studies needs always to be considered when evaluating findings.…”

Section: Configural Processing In Childhoodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autism Spectrum Disorder

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is important to note that as spatial quantization eliminates information about the form of local features rather than about the mutual distances and directions between the approximate locations where these features (''feature tokens'') are situated, it should be considered as a transformation that impairs the fine-scale relational aspect of configurational processing (e.g., see Leder & Bruce, 2000;Schwaninger et al, 2003) rather than the coarse-scale wholistic aspect of configurational processing.…”

Section: Spatial Quantization and Maskingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But we do not directly manipulate basic configurational characteristics. This is a serious problem because configurational characteristics pertaining to inter-feature distances differently influence performance in higher-level face recognition and lower-level facial image perception tasks (Schwaninger, Ryf, & Hofer, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forward masking of faces by spatially quantized random and structured masks: On the roles of wholistic configuration, local features, and spatial-frequency spectra in perceptual identification

Bachmann

Luiga

Põder

2003

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forward masking of faces by spatially quantized masking images was studied. Masks were used in order to exert different types of degrading effects on the early representations in facial information processing. Three types of source images for masks were used: Same-face images (with regard to targets), different-face images, and random Gaussian noise that was spectrally similar to facial images. They were all spatially quantized over the same range of quantization values. Same-face masks had virtually no masking effect at any of the quantization values. Different-face masks had strong masking effects only with fine-scale quantization, but led to the same efficiency of recognition as in the same-face mask condition with the coarsest quantization. Moreover, compared with the noise-mask condition, coarsely quantized different-face masks led to a relatively facilitated level of recognition efficiency. The masking effect of the noise mask did not vary significantly with the coarseness of quantization. The results supported neither a local feature processing account, nor a generalized spatial-frequency processing account, but were consistent with the microgenetic configuration-processing theory of face recognition. Also, the suitability of a spatial quantization technique for image configuration processing research has been demonstrated.

show abstract

Configural information is processed differently in perception and recognition of faces

Cited by 30 publications

References 14 publications

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Forward masking of faces by spatially quantized random and structured masks: On the roles of wholistic configuration, local features, and spatial-frequency spectra in perceptual identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About