Features, Configuration, and Holistic Face Processing

Tanaka, James W.; Gordon, Iris

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0010

Cited by 103 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe this inhibition of the foveated feature by peripheral features is necessary for holistic processing, the hallmark of upright face processing (Rossion, 2009). Holistic processing refers to the perceptual integration of all facial features into a whole and numerous studies have shown that it is what characterizes the processing of faces over other visual objects which are processed more featurally (Maurer et al, 2002;Rossion, 2009;Tanaka & Gordon, 2011). The mechanism we describe does precisely that.…”

Section: Inhibition Of Foveated Features By Perifoveal Features Ensurmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Numerous behavioural studies have shown that objects are processed mostly in a piecemeal way while faces are perceived mostly holistically (e.g. Tanaka & Farah, 1993;Tanaka & Gordon, 2011) and that inversion disrupts this holistic processing (Rossion, 2009). In ERP studies, faces presented upside down trigger delayed but most importantly larger N170s compared to upright faces (Bentin et al, 1996;Itier & Taylor, 2002;Rossion et al, 1999), while upside down objects usually elicit only delayed responses (Itier et al, 2006;Kloth et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyes are central to face processing however their role in early face encoding as reflected by the N170 ERP component is unclear. Using eye tracking to enforce fixation on specific facial features, we found that the N170 was larger for fixation on the eyes compared to fixation on the forehead, nasion, nose or mouth, which all yielded similar amplitudes. This eye sensitivity was seen in both upright and inverted faces and was lost in eyeless faces, demonstrating it was due to the presence of eyes at fovea. Upright eyeless faces elicited largest N170 at nose fixation. Importantly, the N170 face inversion effect (FIE) was strongly attenuated in eyeless faces when fixation was on the eyes but was less attenuated for nose fixation and was normal when fixation was on the mouth. These results suggest the impact of eye removal on the N170 FIE is a function of the angular distance between the fixated feature and the eye location. We propose the Lateral Inhibition, Face Template and Eye Detector based (LIFTED) model which accounts for all the present N170 results including the FIE and its interaction with eye removal. Although eyes elicit the largest N170 response, reflecting the activity of an eye detector, the processing of upright faces is holistic and entails an inhibitory mechanism from neurons coding parafoveal information onto neurons coding foveal information. The LIFTED model provides a neuronal account of holistic and featural processing involved in upright and inverted faces and offers precise predictions for further testing.

show abstract

Section: Inhibition Of Foveated Features By Perifoveal Features Ensurmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most theories of face perception agree that upright faces are processed qualitatively differently from inverted faces, although the exact nature of this difference is currently under heavy debate (for reviews see Rossion and Gauthier, 2002;Tanaka and Gordon, 2011). Several studies suggested that face inversion disturbs the processing of configural/holistic information in a face more than that of the facial features either overall across the entire face (Rhodes et al, 1993;Cabeza and Kato, 2000;Freire et al, 2000;Leder and Bruce, 2000;Barton et al, 2001;Leder et al, 2001;Rossion and Gauthier, 2002;Leder and Carbon, 2006) or at least in the lower, mouth region (Xu and Tanaka, 2013;Tanaka et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies suggested that face inversion disturbs the processing of configural/holistic information in a face more than that of the facial features either overall across the entire face (Rhodes et al, 1993;Cabeza and Kato, 2000;Freire et al, 2000;Leder and Bruce, 2000;Barton et al, 2001;Leder et al, 2001;Rossion and Gauthier, 2002;Leder and Carbon, 2006) or at least in the lower, mouth region (Xu and Tanaka, 2013;Tanaka et al, 2009). Other studies, however, emphasize that the processing of featural and configural information are equally disrupted by face inversion (Riesenhuber et al, 2004;Yovel and Kanwisher, 2004; for a review see Tanaka and Gordon, 2011). Despite the lack of consensus regarding the details 2 , common to all these studies is the assumption that certain mechanisms, exclusively involved in the processing of upright faces are interrupted by picture-plane inversion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition probability effects for inverted faces

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, many experiments have shown that different recognition processes underlie face recognition, as compared to object and scene recognition (e.g., Diamond & Carey, 1986;McKone & Peh, 2006). In particular, the evidence strongly suggests that faces, unlike objects, are typically recognized on the basis of their holistic or configural properties, rather than on the basis of individual features (for a recent review, see Tanaka & Gordon, 2011). Thus, the finding of relatively higher confidence for feature-based than for familiarity-based responses that we observed for scenes may not occur in the case of faces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidence–accuracy relations for faces and scenes: Roles of features and familiarity

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using naturalistic scenes, we recently demonstrated that confidence-accuracy relations differ depending on whether recognition responses are based on memory for a specific feature or instead on general familiarity: When confidence is controlled for, accuracy is higher for familiarity-based than for feature-based responses. In the present experiment, we show that these results generalize to face recognition. Subjects studied photographs of scenes and faces presented for varying brief durations and received a recognition test on which they (1) indicated whether each picture was old or new, (2) rated their confidence in their response, and (3) indicated whether their response was based on memory for a feature or on general familiarity. For both stimulus types, subjects were more accurate and more confident for their feature-based than for their familiarity-based responses. However, when confidence was held constant, accuracy was higher for familiaritybased than for feature-based responses. These results demonstrate an important similarity between face and scene recognition and show that for both types of stimuli, confidence and accuracy are based on different information.Keywords Human memory . Face recognition . Recollection . FamiliarityAlthough confidence and accuracy tend to be correlated in recognition memory experiments, the relation is far from perfect. One reason why confidence is not always a good predictor of accuracy is that confidence and accuracy are not always based on the same underlying information. For instance, there is good evidence that metacognitive assumptions sometimes influence confidence in ways that are unrelated to accuracy; for instance, Busey, Tunnicliff, Loftus, and Loftus (2000) found that increasing the luminance of test items in a recognition experiment produced an increase in recognition confidence but no corresponding accuracy increase. The likely reason is that increasing luminance caused the items to become more salient, and subjects assumed that salient items were more likely to be correctly remembered.Reinitz, Peria, Séguin, and Loftus (2011) specifically tested the proposal that accuracy and confidence are based in part on different underlying informational components. Many previous studies have shown that recognition responses are sometimes based on memory for a visual feature, and sometimes on general familiarity. Featurebased responses tend to be more accurate that familiaritybased responses (e.g., Loftus & Bell, 1975;Loftus & Kallman, 1979;Yonelinas, 2002); however, none of these earlier authors measured recognition confidence. Using naturalistic scenes, Reinitz et al. (2011) Psychon Bull Rev (2012) 19:1085-1093 which, in turn, allowed us to produce confidence-accuracy scatterplots, with one point corresponding to each of the 12 response type-duration conditions. Figure 1 includes an example of such a plot, using the natural-scene data from Reinitz et al. (2011). As with all other graphs in this article, up-facing, solid triangles indicate feature-based respons...

show abstract

Features, Configuration, and Holistic Face Processing

Cited by 103 publications

References 0 publications

Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing

Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing

Repetition probability effects for inverted faces

Confidence–accuracy relations for faces and scenes: Roles of features and familiarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About