Context effects in the processing of familiar faces

Abstract

In this paper we report five experiments that investigate the influence of prime faces upon the speed with which familiar faces are recognized and named. Previously, priming had been reported when the prime and target faces were closely associated, e.g., Prince Charles and Princess Diana (Bruce & Valentine, 1986). In Experiment 1 we show that there is a reliable effect of relatedness on a double-familiarity decision, even when the faces are only categorically related, e.g., Kirk Douglas and Clint Eastwood. Then it was shown that such an effect emerges only on a double decision task (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 4 showed that on a primed naming task, faces preceded by a categorically related prime were responded to more quickly than those preceded by an unrelated prime, and the effect was due to inhibition. Experiment 5 replicated this effect and also showed that when associatively related primes were used, a facilitatory, and not an inhibitory, effect is found. It is argued that the facilitation of associative priming arises at an earlier locus than the inhibition of categorial priming.

Categorical priming of famous person recognition: A hitherto overlooked methodological factor can resolve a long-standing debate

“…It seems plausible that these participants would have processed the primes at the level of It follows that associate priming of person recognition would typically benefit from co-occurrence and other shared semantics, while categorical priming would benefit only from other shared semantics. This would explain why associate priming is consistently observed to be greater than categorical priming where both are statistically significant (99ms vs. 37ms in Brennen & Bruce, 1991;135ms vs. 118ms in Bruce, 1983; 67ms vs. 50ms in the present experiment).…”

“…Bruce (1983), Brennen and Bruce (1991), and Stone and Valentine (2007) all reported categorical priming, as did Carson and Burton (2001) from multiple primes though not from a single prime, while Barry, Johnston and Scanlan (1998) and Young, Flude, Hellawell and Ellis (1994) reported nonsignificant categorical priming. The latter two papers both noted that the absence of categorical priming, compared with larger and statistically significant associative priming, challenged the Burton et al (1990) model of organisation of person knowledge.…”

“…Brennen and Bruce (1991) This analysis assumes that participants would generally be satisfied with the observation of a strong prime-target relationship and would not look for another, weaker relationship. This assumption is supported by Schweinberger, Pfutze and Sommer (1995), who found no effect of associative priming in a task with associated pairs and repeated pairs.…”

The categorical structure of knowledge for famous people (and a novel application of Centre-Surround theory)☆

“…The observation by Young, Flude, Hellawell and Ellis (1994) of significant associative priming of person recognition combined with a failure to observe significant categorical priming based on shared occupation is consistent with the Barry et al (1998) proposal. Further, Brennen and Bruce (1991), although they observed significant categorical priming, argued that the mechanism of categorical priming was qualitatively different to the mechanism of associative priming. If these views are correct, then semantic knowledge for persons lacks a categorical structure, and thus differs from semantic knowledge for objects.…”

“…On the one hand, Bruce (1983), Brennen and Bruce (1991), and Carson and Burton (2001) all reported significant categorical priming of person recognition: responses to Categorical priming, masked famous faces 4 famous target faces or names were faster when the prime face or name was a person of the same occupation compared to a person of a different occupation. Darling and Valentine (2005), using the paradigm of release from proactive interference, presented results supporting the concept that semantic memory for famous people has a categorical structure and that occupation is an important category.…”