Your Eyes Only? A Test of Interactive Influence in the Processing of Facial Features

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1486-1500

  Macho, Siegfried ^a   Leder, Helmut ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TIME;

ADULT; CUES; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; STATISTICS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0032177506     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1486     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Agresti, A. (1989). Tutorial on modeling ordered categorical response data. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 290-301.
2. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
3. Ashby, F. G. (1992). Multidimensional models of categorization. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 449-483). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (1993). Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 372-400.
5. Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179.
6. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
7. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/ correlation for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Cramer, E. M., & Applebaum, M. I. (1980). Nonorthogonal analysis of variance once again. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 51-57.
9. Crother, C. S., Batchelder, W. H., & Hu, X. (1995). A measurement-theoretic analysis of the fuzzy logic model of perception. Psychological Review, 102, 396-408.
10. Cutting, J. E., Bruno, N., Brady, N. P., & Moore, C. (1992). Selectivity, scope and simplicity of models: A lesson from fitting judgments to perceived depth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 364-381.
11. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
12. Ellison, J. W., & Massaro, D. W. (1997). Feature evaluation, integration, and judgment of facial affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 213-226.
13. Leder, H. (1996). Line drawings of face reduce configurai processing. Perception, 25, 355-366.
14. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (1997). When inverted faces are recognized. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (in press). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology.
16. Leder, H., & Theiler, L. (1997). Matching. 1.2: A Macintosh software tool for the presentation of photographic stimuli. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 56, 193-194.
17. Li, S., Lewandowsky, S., & DeBrunner, V. E. (1996). Using parameter sensitivity and interdependence to predict model scope and falsifiability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 360-369.
18. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
19. Massaro, D. W., & Cohen, M. M. (1993). The paradigm and the fuzzy logical model of perception are alive and well. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 115-124.
20. Massaro, D. W., & Ellison, J. W. (1996). Perceptual recognition of facial affect: Cross-cultural comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24, 812-822.
21. Massaro, D. W., & Friedman, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information. Psychological Review, 97, 225-252.
22. Massaro, D. W., & Hary, J. M. (1986). Addressing issues in letter recognition. Psychological Research, 48, 123-132.
23. Palmer, S. E. (1975). Visual perception and world knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In D. A. Norman & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Explorations in cognition (pp. 279-307). San Francisco: Freeman.
24. Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structures in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441-474.
25. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259-303). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318-339.
27. Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 904-915.
28. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configurai processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
29. Shepherd, J., Davies, G., & Ellis, H. (1981). Studies of cue saliency. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and remembering faces. London: Academic Press.
30. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225-245.
31. Tversky, A., & Krantz, D. H. (1969). Similarity of schematic faces: A test of interdimensional additivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 124-128.
32. Wickens, T. D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.