Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo‐memory

Solso, Robert L.; McCarthy, Judith E.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb01779.x

Cited by 84 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These can be observed in recognition memory where individuals tend to display false recognition to a previously unstudied prototype. Also characteristic of the effect is the fact that the degree of similarity between the exemplar and the prototype is reflected in recognition levels: the higher the similarity, the more likely a positive recognition response (Cabeza, Bruce, Kato, & Oda, 1999;Omohundro, 1981;Solso & McCarthy, 1981). A similar prototype effect has been observed using categorization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

When Prototypes Are Not Best: Judgments Made by Children with Autism

Molesworth

Bowler

Hampton

2008

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. When prototypes 2 PermanentThe current study used a factorial comparison experimental design to investigate conflicting findings on prototype effects shown by children with autism (Klinger & Dawson, 2001;Molesworth, Bowler, & Hampton, 2005). The aim was to see whether children with highfunctioning autism could demonstrate prototype effects via categorization responses and whether failure to do so was related to difficulty understanding ambiguous task demands.Two thirds of the autism group did show an effect. The remainder, a sub-group defined by performance on a control task, did not. The discussion focuses on the influence of heterogeneity within the autism group and the ability to resolve ambiguity on task performance. Finally, an alternative experimental design is recommended for further research into these issues.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 68%

When Prototypes Are Not Best: Judgments Made by Children with Autism

Molesworth

Bowler

Hampton

2008

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goldman & Homa, 1977;Medin & Schaffer, 1978;Reed 1972;Solso & McCarthy, 1981). The stimulus sets were constructed in a similar manner to the 'Identikit' and 'Photofit' facial composite systems of the day (see Figure 1 for an example).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Face-Space: A Unifying Concept in Face Recognition Research

Valentine

Lewis

Hills

2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

187

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phone: +44 (0)207 919 7871.Face-space: A unifying concept. 2 AbstractThe concept of a multi-dimensional psychological space, in which faces can be represented according to their perceived properties, is fundamental to the modern theorist in face processing. Yet the idea was not clearly expressed until 1991. The background that led to Valentine's (1991a) face-space is explained and its continuing influence on theories of face processing is discussed. Research that has explored the properties of the face-space and sought to understand caricature, including facial adaptation paradigms is reviewed. Facespace as a theoretical framework for understanding the effect of ethnicity and the development of face recognition is evaluated. Finally two applications of face-space in the forensic setting are discussed. From initially being presented as a model to explain distinctiveness, inversion and the effect of ethnicity, face-space has become a central pillar in many aspects of face processing. It is currently being developed to help us understand adaptation effects with faces. While being in principle a simple concept, face-space has shaped, and continues to shape, our understanding of face perception.

show abstract

“…Superimposing these different recall attempts should reveal an image closer to this prototype. Research into the prototype effect shows that participants tend to find an unpresented prototypical pattern (Posner & Keele, 1968) or face (Solso & McCarthy, 1981;Bruce, Doyle, Dench & Burton, 1991;Cabeza, Bruce, Kato & Oda, 1999) at least as familiar as items which have actually been studied. In the discussion of this article we will return to this phenomenon when considering the potential for implementation of the reported effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Four heads are better than one: Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness.

Bruce¹,

Ness²,

Hancock³

et al. 2002

Journal of Applied Psychology

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Four different participants constructed face composites, using "PRO-Fit", of familiar and unfamiliar targets, with reference images present or from memory. The "mean" of all four composites, created by morphing (4-Morph) was rated as a better likeness than individual composites on average, and was as good as the best individual likeness. When participants attempted to identify targets from line-ups, 4-Morphs again performed as well as the best individual composite. In a second experiment participants familiar with target women attempted to identify composites, and the trend showed better recognition from multiple composites, whether combined or shown together. In a line-up task with unfamiliar participants, 4-Morphs produced most correct choices, and fewest false positives from target absent or target present arrays. These results have practical implications for the way evidence from different witnesses is used in police investigations. 2Four heads are better than one

show abstract

Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo‐memory

Cited by 84 publications

References 4 publications

When Prototypes Are Not Best: Judgments Made by Children with Autism

When Prototypes Are Not Best: Judgments Made by Children with Autism

Face-Space: A Unifying Concept in Face Recognition Research

Four heads are better than one: Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About