Horizontal information drives the behavioral signatures of face processing

Goffaux, Valérie; Dakin, Steven C.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00143

Cited by 67 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, there is debate about the exact nature of inversion effects, particularly as they affect configural processing (e.g. Goffaux & Dakin, 2010;Sekunova & Barton, 2008).…”

Section: Popularity Of Configural Processing Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition

Burton

Schweinberger

Jenkins

et al. 2015

Perspect Psychol Sci

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face recognition is a remarkable human ability, which underlies a great deal of our social behaviour. We can recognize family members, friends and acquaintances over a very large range of conditions, and yet the processes by which we do this remain poorly understood, despite decades of research. Although a detailed understanding remains elusive, face recognition is widely thought to rely on Ôconfigural processingÕ, specifically an analysis of spatial relations between facial features (so-called second-order configurations). In this paper, we challenge this traditional view, raising four problems: (i) configural theories are underspecified; (ii) large configural changes leave recognition unharmed; (iii) recognition is harmed by non-configural changes; (iv) in separate analyses of face-shape and face-texture, identification tends to be dominated by texture. We review evidence from a variety of sources and suggest that failure to acknowledge the impact of familiarity on facial representations may have led to an overgeneralization of the configural account. We argue instead that second-order configural information is remarkably unimportant for familiar face recognition.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, there is debate about the exact nature of inversion effects, particularly as they affect configural processing (e.g. Goffaux & Dakin, 2010;Sekunova & Barton, 2008).…”

Section: Popularity Of Configural Processing Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition

Burton

Schweinberger

Jenkins

et al. 2015

Perspect Psychol Sci

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, face recognition also appears to rely upon a specific vocabulary of low-level features: Intermediate spatial frequencies (~8–16 cycles/face) are the most useful for a range of recognition tasks (Costen, Parker, & Craw, 1996; Nasanen, 1999; Ruiz-Soler & Beltran, 2006) and horizontal orientation energy (e.g. edges) similarly appears to be more useful for recognition than vertical orientations (Dakin & Watt, 2009; Goffaux & Dakin, 2010). Thus, both in terms of candidate high-level features and well-specified low-level features, face recognition appears to depend on distinct visual information to varying degrees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children (but not adults) judge similarity in own- and other-race faces by the color of their skin

Balas

Peissig

Moulson

2015

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face shape and pigmentation are both diagnostic cues for face identification and categorization. In particular, both shape and pigmentation contribute to observers’ categorization of faces by race. Though many theoretical accounts of the behavioral other-race effect either explicitly or implicitly depend on differential use of visual information as a function of category expertise, there is little evidence that observers do in fact differentially rely upon distinct visual cues for own- and other-race faces. Presently, we examined how Asian and Caucasian children (4–6 years old) and adults use 3D shape and 2D pigmentation to make similarity judgments of White, Black, and Asian faces. Children in this age range are both capable of making category judgments about race, but are also sufficiently plastic with regard to the behavioral other-race effect that it seems as though their representations of facial appearance across different categories are still emerging. Using a simple match-to-sample similarity task, we found that children tend to use pigmentation to judge facial similarity more than adults, and also that own- vs. other-group category membership appears to influence how quickly children learn to use shape information more readily. We therefore suggest that children continue to adjust how different visual information is weighted during early and middle childhood and that experience with faces affects the speed at which adult-like weightings are established.

show abstract

“…Therefore, future research needs to assess whether OA’ ability to recognize older faces with horizontal information is actually based on face processing mechanisms (i.e., face-specific configural processing) or whether low-level selective feature-based processing is primarily being targeted. This could be accomplished by applying an experimental approach similar to Goffaux and Dakin (2010) testing for the behavioral (face specific) signature of horizontally filtered and unfiltered age congruent-faces in OAs. Additionally, we propose that future studies add faces that are familiar to the subjects like it was initially done by Dakin and Watt (2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This clustering of horizontal visual information along a vertical axis in human faces was labeled biological ‘bar code’ and is proposed as a highly constrained one-dimensional code that makes faces special visual stimuli. Follow-up studies conducted by Goffaux and Dakin (2010) reported face specific effects for horizontal but not for vertical information as indicated by different face-specific phenomena like the FIE demonstrating that face stimuli that only contain horizontal information are processed configurally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…While Dakin and Watt (2009) measured identification accuracy of celebrity faces, Goffaux and Dakin (2010) assessed recognition performance of unfamiliar faces as indicated by target detection sensitivity ( d′ ). Adding a developmental perspective, Obermeyer et al (2012) assessed a group of younger ( M = 21.07 years) and OAs ( M = 66.20 years).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Own-Age Bias in Recognizing Faces with Horizontal Information

Schaich

Obermeyer

Kolling

et al. 2016

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Horizontal information, as a result of a selective filtering process, is essential in younger adults’ (YA) ability to recognize human faces. Obermeyer et al. (2012) recently reported impaired recognition of faces with horizontal information in older adults (OA) suggesting age-variant processing. Two yet unconsidered factors (stimulus age and exposure duration) that may have influenced previous results, were investigated in this study. Forty-seven YA (18–35 years) and 49 OA (62–83 years) were tested in a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design with the between-subjects factors age group (YA vs. OA) and stimulus age (young faces vs. older faces) and the within-subjects factors filter [filtered (HF) faces vs. unfiltered faces (UF)] and exposure duration (0.8 s vs. 8 s). Subjects were presented morph videos between pairs of faces: a starting face gradually merged into either the previously encoded target face or a control face. As expected, results showed an increase in recognition sensitivity (d′) with longer exposure duration in YA with both younger and older HF faces. OA, however, were unable to recognize filtered young faces not even with increased exposure duration. Furthermore, only elderly participants showed more accurate recognition with faces of their own age relative to other-age faces (own-age bias, OAB). For YA no OAB was observed. Filtered face recognition was significantly correlated with unfiltered recognition in YA but not in OA. It is concluded, that processing of horizontal information changes at a higher age. Presenting filtered or unfiltered faces both targets convergent face-specific processing only in YA but not in OA.

show abstract

Horizontal information drives the behavioral signatures of face processing

Cited by 67 publications

References 65 publications

Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition

Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition

Children (but not adults) judge similarity in own- and other-race faces by the color of their skin

An Own-Age Bias in Recognizing Faces with Horizontal Information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About