Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?

Ashworth, Alan R. S.; Vuong, Quoc C.; Rossion, Bruno; Tarr, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/13506280701381741

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies elicited a bias to certain regions in a viewer-centered frame of reference, whereas in the current study, attention was drawn to specific features in an object-based frame of reference. We should note, however, that we would not expect this to be a viewpoint-dependent frame of reference that would rotate with the object, because learning with complex objects is viewpoint-specific (e.g., Ashworth III, Alan, Quoc, Rossion & Tarr, 2008; Rossion & Curran, 2010). Therefore, the present effects could represent a mixture of an object-based frame of reference and viewpoint-specific object representations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Category-specific learned attentional bias to object parts

Chua

Gauthier

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can selectively attend to information in visual scenes. Learning from previous experiences plays a role in how visual attention is subsequently deployed. For example, visual search times are faster in areas that are statistically more likely to contain a target (Jiang et al., 2014). Here, we examined whether similar attentional biases can be created for different locations on complex objects as a function of their category, based on a history of these locations containing a target. Subjects performed a visual search task in the context of novel objects called Greebles. The target appeared in one half (e.g., top) of the Greebles 89% of the time and in the other half (e.g., bottom) 11% of the time. We found a reaction time advantage when the target was located in a “target-rich” region, even after target location probabilities were equated. This indicates that attentional biases can be associated not only with regions of space, but with specific object features, or at least with locations in an object-based frame of reference.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Category-specific learned attentional bias to object parts

Chua

Gauthier

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the only evidence that the CFMT taps into such representations is that participants perform better on the test when face stimuli are upright rather than inverted. This represents indirect evidence at best, given that strong inversion effects are also obtained for non-face objects that are not thought to be processed holistically (e.g., Ashworth, Vuong, Rossion, & Tarr, 2008). Past work that found a small but significant correlation between the original part-whole paradigm and the CFMT did not include a measure of non-face object recognition ability .…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

Limited evidence of individual differences in holistic processing in different versions of the part-whole paradigm

Sunday

Richler

Gauthier

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The part-whole paradigm was one of the first measures of holistic processing and it has been used to address several topics in face recognition, including its development, other-race effects, and more recently, whether holistic processing is correlated with face recognition ability. However the task was not designed to measure individual differences and it has produced measurements with low reliability. We created a new holistic processing test designed to measure individual differences based on the part-whole paradigm, the Vanderbilt Part Whole Test (VPWT). Measurements in the part and whole conditions were reliable, but, surprisingly, there was no evidence for reliable individual differences in the partwhole index (how well a person can take advantage of a face part presented within a whole face context compared to the part presented without a whole face) because part and whole conditions were strongly correlated. The same result was obtained in a version of the original part-whole task that was modified to increase its reliability. Controlling for object recognition ability, we found that variance in the whole condition does not predict any additional variance in face recognition over what is already predicted by performance in the part condition.

show abstract

“…They created numerous novel stimulus sets including “Greebles” (nonsense creatures made from simple geometric parts). Their studies revealed how repeated exposure to these novel stimuli gradually yielded sensitivity in their observers to image properties normally regarded as specific to face processing, including configural and composite effects (Gauthier and Tarr, 1997, 2002; Ashworth et al, 2008). There is a wealth of behavioral evidence to support the idea that holistic processing emerges only after high levels of exposure, both in the object and developmental face recognition literature.…”

Section: Evidence For Learning In Visual Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a unified model of face and object recognition in the human visual system

Wallis¹

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of the mechanisms and neural substrates underlying visual recognition has made considerable progress over the past 30 years. During this period, accumulating evidence has led many scientists to conclude that objects and faces are recognised in fundamentally distinct ways, and in fundamentally distinct cortical areas. In the psychological literature, in particular, this dissociation has led to a palpable disconnect between theories of how we process and represent the two classes of object. This paper follows a trend in part of the recognition literature to try to reconcile what we know about these two forms of recognition by considering the effects of learning. Taking a widely accepted, self-organizing model of object recognition, this paper explains how such a system is affected by repeated exposure to specific stimulus classes. In so doing, it explains how many aspects of recognition generally regarded as unusual to faces (holistic processing, configural processing, sensitivity to inversion, the other-race effect, the prototype effect, etc.) are emergent properties of category-specific learning within such a system. Overall, the paper describes how a single model of recognition learning can and does produce the seemingly very different types of representation associated with faces and objects.

show abstract

Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?

Cited by 32 publications

References 45 publications

Category-specific learned attentional bias to object parts

Category-specific learned attentional bias to object parts

Limited evidence of individual differences in holistic processing in different versions of the part-whole paradigm

Toward a unified model of face and object recognition in the human visual system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About