Distinct neural-behavioral correspondence within face processing and attention networks for the composite face effect

Measuring the Contributions of Perceptual and Attentional Processes in the Complete Composite Face Paradigm

“…Another promising path to interpret and integrate these findings more fully into a cohesive framework involves the integration of domain-general and domain-specific neurological contributions. Although face perception literature is replete with examples of behavior-only outcomes (as are reported here), promising new work by Chen and colleagues [22] investigated the composite face effect as a neural-behavioral phenomenon. In their study, participants completed the composite face paradigm in an MRI scanner.…”

“…Misalignment disrupts Subsequent uses of the complete composite face paradigm (and the corresponding composite face illusion) have revealed holistic processing differences as predicted by Richler et al [6] and Gauthier [21]. Namely, support comes from neurological evidence [22], behavioral evidence in neurotypical populations [23], individual differences in facial recognition ability [24], and face-specific congenital or developmental deficits (e.g., prosopagnosia) [25,26]. Equipped with the appropriate tools, researchers can work towards layering additional manipulations that mirror real-world challenges faced by everyday people, as opposed to adding only partially informative findings to the already confusing theoretical fray.…”

“…As a controlled, resource-demanding route to facial recognition, featural processing should suffer under controlled, resource-demanding DA manipulations. Second, facial memory representations formed at encoding must necessarily be influenced by decisional [27] and attentional [15] systems in order to make accurate recognition judgements [22]. In other words, recognition responses are not an uncontaminated reflection of facial encoding alone.…”