Facilitation and interference are asymmetric in holistic face processing

Abstract

A hallmark of face specificity is holistic processing. It is typically measured by various paradigms such as the part-whole and composite tasks. However, these tasks do not seem to test the same construct, so a comprehensive account of holistic processing remains elusive. Here we investigated the nature of facilitation and interference observed in congruent and incongruent trials in the complete composite face task. These two aspects are asymmetrically influenced by the location and cueing probabilities of the target facial half, demonstrating that there are at least two sources of influence contributing independently to holistic face processing: facilitation and interference. In our view, other tasks, such as the part-whole and standard composite face task, likely reveal facilitation and interference respectively as well. We propose that this perspective provides the opportunity to bring the mixed findings from different paradigms measuring holistic processing into one unified framework.

Two faces of holistic face processing: Facilitation and interference underlying part-whole and composite effects

“…Consistent with recent findings that facilitation and interference in holistic face processing may operate somewhat independently (Jin, Ji, et al, 2022), our results suggest that the separate contributions from facilitation or interference in PW, SC, and CC might have resulted in the mixed findings in the literature. Because both facilitation and interference that contribute to the holistic effect can be measured by the congruency effect in CC, we suggest that CC may be a more complete measure of holistic processing than the other tasks if both components of holistic processing are of interest.…”

“…We proposed that these tasks might measure two aspects of holistic face processing-facilitation and interference (Jin, Ji, et al, 2022). As facilitation and interference can be quantified in CC by comparing performance in congruent or incongruent trials with the isolated trials (e.g., Richler et al, 2008), we suggest that the whole face context in PW provides congruent information to aid identification of the target facial feature, whereas the different bottom halves in SC produces incongruent information to impair the matching of the identical top halves.…”

Looking at the upper facial half enlarges the range of holistic face processing

“…There are several different composite-face paradigms 55 – 57 . The standard design (or original design, partial design) and the complete design are the most widely used paradigms 55 – 58 . There has been an intensive debate between both paradigms 59 – 61 .…”

“…Some researchers suggested that in the standard paradigm, the congruency and response type are confounded, and the alignment effects may arise from differential response biases. A preprinted study by Jin et al offered an alternative explanation of difference between standard design and complete design 55 . The researchers found that there are two aspects of the influence of irrelevant facial parts on the target parts in the complete composite paradigm: facilitation in congruent trials and interference in incongruent trials.…”

“…There are several different composite-face paradigms [55][56][57] . The standard design (or original design, partial design) and the complete design are the most widely used paradigms [55][56][57][58] www.nature.com/scientificreports/ between both paradigms [59][60][61] . In this study, we chose the standard paradigm to study the effects that are specific to upright faces.…”