The Conjunction Effect and Feature Effect in Faces Are Modulated by Task Type

2018

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

Within memory processing, feature and conjunction effects refer to higher false alarms (incorrectly naming items as previously seen) for stimuli with partial/all features taken from different previously studied versus novel items. In this study, we compared feature-conjunction effects in the memory tasks of both item recognition and source retrieval, using faces as stimuli. We found greater feature-conjunction effects on source retrieval versus item recognition tasks, though participants gave slower responses on source retrieval versus item recognition. Thus, our data were consistent with dual-process memory theory in which familiarity contributes to high false alarms in compound faces even while feature-conjunction effects enhance recollection in source retrieval.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial Recall: Feature–Conjunction Effects in Source Retrieval Versus Item Recognition

2018

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

“…Apart from these prime images, there were also 240 target faces of which 80 were the same familiar faces as those presented as primes, 80 had the same familiar internal features, and 80 had the same familiar external features. Following previous research procedures (Bartlett et al., 2009; Jones & Bartlett, 2009; Nie, 2018; Nie, Jiang, et al, 2014, 2015, 2015), we constructed the familiar internal and external facial feature faces by adopting Adobe Photoshop CC 2017. Thus, the internal and external facial feature faces were reconstructed by replacing the features of the remaining 160 primes (see paragraph above) with the features of the other 80 faces that had not been utilized as the primes (see paragraph above).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there were brain activation differences for facial memory comparisons between a whole familiar face and a new face with external facial features from a familiar face. Of note, these researchers demonstrated that these two types of reconstructions from internal and external facial features held similar familiarity in terms of behavioral recognition (Nie, 2018; Nie, Jiang, et al, 2014; Nie, Jiang, et al, 2015), but distinctly different familiarity in terms of neural activations (ERP signals) for which familiar internal feature faces evoked much stronger activations than familiar external feature faces (Nie, Jiang, et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For instance, some studies differentiated internal and external facial features in facial memory (Meinhardt-Injac et al., 2010; Nie, 2018; Nie, Jiang, et al., 2014; Nie, Jiang, et al., 2015). Internal features include the forehead, eyebrows, eyes, nose, cheeks, and mouth, while external features refer to hairstyle, ears, chin, and facial contours (Bartlett et al., 2009; Jones & Bartlett, 2009; Nie, 2018; Nie, Jiang, et al, 2014; Nie, Jiang, et al, 2015). Research on recognition of new faces that were reconstructed by altering internal or external features found that brain activation was similar for facial memory comparisons between a whole familiar face and a new face with internal facial features from a familiar face.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

External (Versus Internal) Facial Features Contribute Most to Repetition Priming in Facial Recognition: ERP Evidence

2020

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

Previous event-related potential (ERP) research demonstrated four successive ERP components in the repetition priming of human face recognition: P100, N170, N250r, and N400. While these components correspond, respectively, to the four stages proposed by the interactive activation and competition (IAC) model, there has been no emphasis in past research on how internal and external facial features affect repetition priming and the sensitivity of these ERP components to item interval. This study was designed to address these issues. We used faces of celebrities as targets, including completely familiar faces, familiar internal feature faces, and familiar external feature faces. We displayed a target face either immediately following its prime (immediate repetition) or after a delay with interference from a presentation of two other faces (delayed repetition). ERP differences at P100 and N170 were nearly statistically non-significant; familiar faces and familiar external feature faces were associated with reliable ERP signals of N250r and N400 in the immediate repetition condition. For delayed repetition, however, N250r and N400 signals were only preserved for the familiar external feature faces. The differences of these ERP components suggest that, compared with internal facial features, external features of a previously presented face contribute more to brain-based facial repetition priming, particularly during the last two stages of the IAC model.

“…As illustrated earlier, episodic memory is well known and defined as the memory for self‐experienced events that can be explicitly retrieved. For it, previous research has identified two distinct sub‐types: item memory which discriminates studied old items from unstudied novel ones, and source memory which retrieves or evaluates the specific aspects of the encoding contexts (e.g., spatial or temporal contexts), from which the events are acquired (Barredo, Öztekin, & Badre, 2015; Bell et al, 2016; Cooper, Greve, & Henson, 2017; Guidotti, Tosoni, Perrucci, & Sestieri, 2019; Leynes, Crawford, Radebaugh, & Taranto, 2013; Monge, Stanley, Geib, Davis, & Cabeza, 2018; Nie, 2018; Nie, Guo, Liang, & Shen, 2013; Nie, Jiang, Fu, & Zhang, 2015; Smith, Race, Davis, & Thomas, 2019; Watrous, Tandon, Conner, Pieters, & Ekstrom, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional discrepancies of doctors and lawyers in episodic memory: Modulations of professional morality and warning

2021

PsyCh Journal

Self Cite

Past investigations have consistently demonstrated the robust stereotype‐consistent effect in the circumstance of source memory but not always in item memory, including the case of professional stereotype. However, it remains unclear whether the effect still occurs in professional stereotype when considering the attributes of negative (or bad) or positive (or good); besides, it has not been concerned about how does warning work in remembering the professional stereotypical stimuli. The current experiments aimed to address these issues by adopting descriptive sentences as stimuli, which were related or unrelated to doctors and lawyers, and with different professional moral valences (negative, neutral, or positive). Item memory and source memory were tested successively. Experiment 1 without the explicit warning confirmed the reliable stereotype‐consistent effect solely in source memory; the modulation of professional morality on memory behaved differently between doctor and lawyer, that is, negativity bias versus positivity bias. When giving an explicit warning (Experiment 2), the stereotype‐consistent effect attenuated in the lawyer case, and the occurrence of negativity bias was sensitive to the memory task. Thus, our findings further reinforce the dual‐process model; both professional morality and warning work in memory of professional stereotype, depending upon the nature of the profession, the concerned memory task, and also the presence of warning. Implications are made for future research to consider more perspectives.