Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes

Gauthier, Isabel; Williams, Pepper; Tarr, Michael J.; Tanaka, James W.

doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00442-2

Cited by 356 publications

(396 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

358

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another recent study also failed to find a significant inversion effect for objects of expertise (fingerprints in fingerprint experts), although this study argues for holistic processing of these stimuli by experts based on superadditive contributions to performance accuracy from the two halves of the stimulus (Busey & Vanderkolk 2005). Other studies have investigated much shorter term cases of visual expertise, claiming that a mere 10 h of laboratory training can produce 'face-like' processing of non-face stimuli (Gauthier et al 1998). However, an examination of the actual data in those studies in fact reveals little or no evidence for disproportionate inversion effects, part-whole effects or composite effects for laboratory-trained stimuli (McKone & Kanwisher 2005;McKone et al in press).…”

Section: Specialized Mechanisms For Face Perception: Evidence From Nementioning

confidence: 55%

“…The idea here is that we are all experts at recognizing faces, and if we had similar expertise discriminating exemplars of a non-face category, then the same processing mechanisms would be engaged. This idea originates from a seminal study by Diamond & Carey (1986) who reported that people with many years of experience judging dogs ('dog experts') exhibit behavioural signatures of facelike processing when perceiving dogs, as well as from more recent studies in which it has been claimed that just 10 h of laboratory training on novel stimuli can lead to 'face-like' processing of those stimuli (Gauthier et al 1998;Tarr & Gauthier 2000).…”

Section: Face Perception: Domain-specific Versus Domain-general Hypotmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces

Kanwisher

Yovel

2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

1,382

989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faces are among the most important visual stimuli we perceive, informing us not only about a person's identity, but also about their mood, sex, age and direction of gaze. The ability to extract this information within a fraction of a second of viewing a face is important for normal social interactions and has probably played a critical role in the survival of our primate ancestors. Considerable evidence from behavioural, neuropsychological and neurophysiological investigations supports the hypothesis that humans have specialized cognitive and neural mechanisms dedicated to the perception of faces (the face-specificity hypothesis). Here, we review the literature on a region of the human brain that appears to play a key role in face perception, known as the fusiform face area (FFA).Section 1 outlines the theoretical background for much of this work. The face-specificity hypothesis falls squarely on one side of a longstanding debate in the fields of cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience concerning the extent to which the mind/brain is composed of: (i) special-purpose ('domain-specific') mechanisms, each dedicated to processing a specific kind of information (e.g. faces, according to the face-specificity hypothesis), versus (ii) general-purpose ('domain-general') mechanisms, each capable of operating on any kind of information. Face perception has long served both as one of the prime candidates of a domain-specific process and as a key target for attack by proponents of domain-general theories of brain and mind. Section 2 briefly reviews the prior literature on face perception from behaviour and neurophysiology. This work supports the face-specificity hypothesis and argues against its domain-general alternatives (the individuation hypothesis, the expertise hypothesis and others).Section 3 outlines the more recent evidence on this debate from brain imaging, focusing particularly on the FFA. We review the evidence that the FFA is selectively engaged in face perception, by addressing (and rebutting) five of the most widely discussed alternatives to this hypothesis. In §4, we consider recent findings that are beginning to provide clues into the computations conducted in the FFA and the nature of the representations the FFA extracts from faces. We argue that the FFA is engaged both in detecting faces and in extracting the necessary perceptual information to recognize them, and that the properties of the FFA mirror previously identified behavioural signatures of face-specific processing (e.g. the face-inversion effect).Section 5 asks how the computations and representations in the FFA differ from those occurring in other nearby regions of cortex that respond strongly to faces and objects. The evidence indicates clear functional dissociations between these regions, demonstrating that the FFA shows not only functional specificity but also area specificity. We end by speculating in §6 on some of the broader questions raised by current research on the FFA, including the developmental origins of this region and the ques...

show abstract

Section: Specialized Mechanisms For Face Perception: Evidence From Nementioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Face Perception: Domain-specific Versus Domain-general Hypotmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces

Kanwisher

Yovel

2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

1,382

989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree of experience an individual has had with a class may help to determine the default level of access for recognition, how sensitive recognition is to image transformations, e.g. brightness reversal, and to changes in configural information (Gauthier and Tarr, 1997a;Tanaka and Sengco, 1997;Gauthier et al, 1998). Models of recognition must be sufficiently plastic to adapt as experience with an object class accumulates.…”

Section: Reconciling Image-based and Structural-description Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…a techno track or a renaissance painting, if you do not listen to this kind of music and do not know the history of art), as long as you do not learn how to distinguish and identify its elements. The difference is defined by the criterion of the social group or the group of items that are treated as 'unfamiliar' 9 This view is confirmed by research on the 'expert' perceptual processes (Gauthier et al 1998;Wong et al 2009). This research shows that the recognition of objects by people who specialise in a given field (e.g.…”

Section: Unfamiliarity Homogeneity Effect: Conceptual Proposal and Sumentioning

confidence: 94%

Cultural neuroscience and the category of race: the case of the other-race effect

Malinowska

2016

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of the category of race in science (in relation to humans) remains controversial. During the last few years there has been a lively debate on this topic in the field of a relatively young neuroscience discipline called cultural neuroscience. The main focus of cultural neuroscience is on biocultural conditions of the development of different dimensions of human perceptive activity, both cognitive or emotional. These dimensions are analysed through the comparison of representatives of different social and ethnic groups. In my article, I present arguments supporting these two hypotheses:(1) the other-race effect understood as an individual, distinct effect does not exist. It is rather an exemplification of a much broader phenomenon which I call the unfamiliarity homogeneity effect. It includes not only problems with differentiation and recognition of faces of representatives of other ethnic groups, but also covers similar recognitional difficulties (e.g. recognition of members of other-social groups, other languages or even certain sounds and objects); (2) The race-based terminology and categories are used in cultural neuroscience research in a vague and inconsistent manner. Such an approach distorts the science both in empirically and conceptually significant respects. The unfamiliarity homogeneity effect is an example of such a situation: narrowing it to the other-race effect makes it difficult to analyse in a wider context crucial for its understanding.

show abstract

Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes

Cited by 356 publications

References 46 publications

The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces

The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces

Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine

Cultural neuroscience and the category of race: the case of the other-race effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About