Neural and Psychophysical Analysis of Object and Face Recognition

Biederman, Irving; Kalocsai, Peter

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-72201-1_1

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to this difference in the processing of visual information, one would expect the inversion of objects to exercise a lesser effect than does inversion of faces (e.g., Biederman, 1987;Biederman & Kalocsai, 1998;Diamond & Carey, 1986;Hummel, 2003;Leder & Carbon, 2006;McKone, 2010;McKone, Martini, & Nakayama, 2003;Tanaka & Farah, 1993.…”

Section: Configural-processing Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The face-inversion effect (FIE) can be viewed as being based on two kinds of findings. According to the face (UI) effect, perception and recognition are better for faces presented upright (U) than for faces presented inverted (I). According to the face/object(UI) effect, inversion impairs the processing of faces more than the processing of nonfacial objects (e.g., buildings or cars). Part I of this article focuses on the face(UI) effect and the configural-processing hypothesis, which is considered the most popular explanatory hypothesis of the FIE. In this hypothesis, it is proposed that inversion impairs the processing of configural information (the spatial relations between features) but hardly (if at all) impairs the processing of featural information (e.g., eyes, nose, and mouth). Part II of the article starts from the conclusion reached in part I, that the configural-processing hypothesis has not succeeded in explaining a substantial number of the findings and in resolving certain theoretical problems. The part then goes on to outline a new alternative model, the face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model, which contends with these theoretical problems, accounts for the configural-processing hypothesis, succeeds in explaining a considerable portion of the empirical findings related to the face(UI) effect, and proposes a relatively new research program on the concept of the face scheme. The basic assumption of the FSI model is that schemes and prototypes are involved in processing a visual stimulus of a face and in transforming it to a "meaning-bearing" face, and that different schemes are involved if the face is presented upright or inverted.

show abstract

Section: Configural-processing Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there have been very few attempts to develop explicit, systematic, quantitative definitions, taxonomies, and explanations of holistic cognitive processes. The work presented here is an attempt to provide these definitions, taxonomies, and explanations, by way of (a) an emphasis on the general characteristics of information processing and (b) a concern with real-time interactions in specific (parallel) informationprocessing architectures.It is the case that certain interactive architectures have been shown to be capable of simulating specific gestaltlike phenomena (e.g., Biederman & Kalocsai, 1998;Cottrell, Dailey, Padgett, & Adolphs, 2001;Grossberg, 1991b;Mordkoff & Yantis, 1991;Rumelhart & McClelland, 1981. Although such studies provide sufficiency arguments, it is not clear what highly simple (in a sense to be defined precisely) and interactive systems can do when compared, within a common framework, with noninteractive systems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Interactive Parallel Processing: New Capacity Measures and Predictions for a Response Time Inequality Series.

Townsend

Wenger

2004

Psychological Review

258

512

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present a theory of stochastic interactive parallel processing with special emphasis on channel interactions and their relation to system capacity. The approach is based both on linear systems theory augmented with stochastic elements and decisional operators and on a metatheory of parallel channels' dependencies that incorporates standard independent and coactive parallel models as special cases. The metatheory is applied to OR and AND experimental paradigms, and the authors establish new theorems relating response time performance in these designs to earlier and novel issues. One notable outcome is the remarkable processing efficiency associated with linear parallel-channel systems that include mutually positive interactions. The results may offer insight into perceptual and cognitive configural-holistic processing systems.When a person views a work of art in all its complexity, it seems as though all dimensions-color, form, arrangement, perspective, and sharpness of edges-are acting in league. But are they? The antithetical notions of independence and dependence have long played a role in the philosophy and science of human perception and cognition. Whether the focus is on the internal representations that support psychological experience or on the channels or systems that work with those representations, eventually the implications of assumptions about independence or dependence need to be considered. 1It is natural to contrast the general notion of independence with ideas such as a holism or a gestalt. However, there have been very few attempts to develop explicit, systematic, quantitative definitions, taxonomies, and explanations of holistic cognitive processes. The work presented here is an attempt to provide these definitions, taxonomies, and explanations, by way of (a) an emphasis on the general characteristics of information processing and (b) a concern with real-time interactions in specific (parallel) informationprocessing architectures.It is the case that certain interactive architectures have been shown to be capable of simulating specific gestaltlike phenomena (e.g., Biederman & Kalocsai, 1998;Cottrell, Dailey, Padgett, & Adolphs, 2001;Grossberg, 1991b;Mordkoff & Yantis, 1991;Rumelhart & McClelland, 1981. Although such studies provide sufficiency arguments, it is not clear what highly simple (in a sense to be defined precisely) and interactive systems can do when compared, within a common framework, with noninteractive systems.Nevertheless, the great preponderance of quantitativecomputational accounts of processing multidimensional stimuli are based on the assumption of independence among channels or items (e.g

show abstract

“…Encoding of second-order relations and holistic information may be particularly important for face recognition because faces are homogeneous and are recognized at the individual level. In contrast, recognition of objects usually takes place at the categorical level, a task that may be accomplished by identifying isolated features and firstorder relations (Biederman & Kalocsai, 1998;Diamond & Carey, 1986;Moscovitch & Moscovitch, 2000). Nonetheless, there is evidence that face recognition relies more heavily on second-order relations and holistic information even when equivalent within-category tasks are used (e.g., Tanaka & Farah, 1993;Tanaka & Sengco, 1997;Yin, 1969).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined whether (1) age-associated impairments in face recognition are specific to faces or also apply to within-category recognition of other objects and (2) age-related face recognition deficits are related to impairments in encoding second-order relations and holistic information. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found reliable age differences for recognition of faces, but not of objects. Moreover, older adults (OAs) and younger adults (YAs) displayed similar face inversion effects. In Experiment 3, unlike YAs, OAs did not show the expected decline in performance for recognition of composites (Young, Hellawell, & Hay, 1987). In Experiment 4, both OAs and YAs showed a whole/part advantage (Tanaka & Farah, 1993). Our results suggest that OAs have spared function for processing of secondorder relations and holistic information. Possible explanations for the finding that OAs have greater difficulty recognizing faces than recognizing other objects are proposed.

show abstract

Neural and Psychophysical Analysis of Object and Face Recognition

Cited by 30 publications

References 40 publications

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

A Theory of Interactive Parallel Processing: New Capacity Measures and Predictions for a Response Time Inequality Series.

Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About