General and specific factors in the processing of faces

Verhallen, Roeland Jan; Bosten, Jenny; Goodbourn, Patrick T.; Lawrance-Owen, Adam J.; Bargary, Gary; Mollon, J. D.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2016.12.014

Cited by 103 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, the bottom line of this research is that there is not a single common factor that reliably explains a substantial portion of the effects of priors on perception. Therefore, this study is in line with previous research that has reported low pairwise correlations between visual tasks and found either no common factors in visual perception (Cappe et al 2014; Goodbourn et al 2012; Grzeczkowski et al 2017) or only few minor sub-factors of perception specific to a single task or narrow processing mechanism (Bosten et al 2017;Verhallen et al 2017;Ward et al 2016). Likewise, the present study adds weight to arguments about the principal difficulty of establishing general prior-including models of optimal perceptual behaviour that could be applied to different tasks (Rahnev & Denison, 2018).…”

Section: Priors Affect Perception In a Variety Of Wayssupporting

confidence: 92%

Individual differences in the effects of priors: a multi-paradigm approach

Tulver¹,

Aru²,

Rutiku³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated individual differences in how much subjects rely on prior information, such as expectations or knowledge, when faced with perceptual ambiguity. The behavioural performance of forty-four participants was measured on four different visual paradigms (Mooney face recognition, illusory contours, blur detection and representational momentum) in which priors have been shown to affect perception. In addition, questionnaires were used to measure autistic and schizotypal traits in the non-clinical population. We hypothesized that someone who in the face of ambiguous or noisy perceptual input relies heavily on priors, would exhibit this tendency across a variety of tasks. This general pattern would then be reflected in high pairwise correlations between the behavioural measures and an emerging common factor. On the contrary, our results imply that there is no single factor that explains the individual differences present in the aforementioned tasks, as further evidenced by the overall lack of robust correlations between the separate paradigms. Instead, a two-factor structure reflecting differences in the hierarchy of perceptual processing was the best fit for explaining the individual variance in these tasks. This lends support to the notion that mechanisms underlying the effects of priors likely originate from several independent sources and that it is important to consider the role of specific tasks and stimuli more carefully when reporting effects of priors on perception.

show abstract

Section: Priors Affect Perception In a Variety Of Wayssupporting

confidence: 92%

Individual differences in the effects of priors: a multi-paradigm approach

Tulver¹,

Aru²,

Rutiku³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, the bottom line of this research is that there is not a single common factor that reliably explains a substantial portion of the effects of priors on perception. Therefore, this study is in line with previous research that has reported low pairwise correlations between visual tasks and found either no common factors in visual perception (Cappe et al 2014; Goodbourn et al 2012;Grzeczkowski et al 2017) or only few minor sub-factors of perception specific to a single task or narrow processing mechanism Verhallen et al 2017;Ward et al 2016). Likewise, the present study adds weight to arguments about the principal difficulty of establishing general prior-including models of optimal perceptual behaviour that could be applied to different tasks (Rahnev & Denison, 2018).…”

Section: Priors Affect Perception In a Variety Of Wayssupporting

confidence: 92%

Individual differences in the effects of priors on perception: a multi-paradigm approach

Tulver

Aru

Rutiku

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated individual differences in how much subjects rely on prior information, such as expectations or knowledge, when faced with perceptual ambiguity. The behavioural performance of forty-four participants was measured on four different visual paradigms (Mooney face recognition, illusory contours, blur detection and representational momentum) in which priors have been shown to affect perception. In addition, questionnaires were used to measure autistic and schizotypal traits in the nonclinical population. We hypothesized that someone who in the face of ambiguous or noisy perceptual input relies heavily on priors, would exhibit this tendency across a variety of tasks. This general pattern would then be reflected in high pairwise correlations between the behavioural measures and an emerging common factor. On the contrary, our results imply that there is no single factor that explains the individual differences present in the aforementioned tasks, as further evidenced by the overall lack of robust correlations between the separate paradigms. Instead, a two-factor structure reflecting differences in the hierarchy of perceptual processing was the best fit for explaining the individual variance in these tasks. This lends support to the notion that mechanisms underlying the effects of priors likely originate from several independent sources and that it is important to consider the role of specific tasks and stimuli more carefully when reporting effects of priors on perception.

show abstract

“…This is evidenced by the heterogeneous patterns of performance across tests in studies of SRs described above (see Table ) and also by studies of individual differences in face processing more broadly. The proportion of shared variance ( r 2 ) between face processing tasks is typically in the range of .10 to .25 and appears to depend on the type of subprocess involved in performing tasks (e.g., Bate et al ., ; Burton, White, & McNeill, ; Fysh, ; McCaffery, Robertson, Young, & Burton, ; Verhallen et al ., ). When considering other abilities that may predict performance in real‐world tasks such as CCTV review and surveillance, this problem is more acute.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Super‐recognizers: From the lab to the world and back again

Ramon

Bobak

White

2019

British J of Psychology

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent discovery of individuals with superior face processing ability has sparked considerable interest amongst cognitive scientists and practitioners alike. These ‘Super‐recognizers’ (SRs) offer clues to the underlying processes responsible for high levels of face processing ability. It has been claimed that they can help make societies safer and fairer by improving accuracy of facial identity processing in real‐world tasks, for example when identifying suspects from Closed Circuit Television or performing security‐critical identity verification tasks. Here, we argue that the current understanding of superior face processing does not justify widespread interest in SR deployment: There are relatively few studies of SRs and no evidence that high accuracy on laboratory‐based tests translates directly to operational deployment. Using simulated data, we show that modest accuracy benefits can be expected from deploying SRs on the basis of ideally calibrated laboratory tests. Attaining more substantial benefits will require greater levels of communication and collaboration between psychologists and practitioners. We propose that translational and reverse‐translational approaches to knowledge development are critical to advance current understanding and to enable optimal deployment of SRs in society. Finally, we outline knowledge gaps that this approach can help address.

show abstract

General and specific factors in the processing of faces

Cited by 103 publications

References 56 publications

Individual differences in the effects of priors: a multi-paradigm approach

Individual differences in the effects of priors: a multi-paradigm approach

Individual differences in the effects of priors on perception: a multi-paradigm approach

Super‐recognizers: From the lab to the world and back again

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About