When faces are heads: View-dependent recognition of faces altered relationally or componentially

Swiss Journal of Psychology

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 245-252

  Carbon, Claus Christian ^a   Leder, Helmut ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

3 dimensional representation; 3D; Configural and componential processing; Face perception; Holistic processing; Learn test compatibility; Relational information; View dependence

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846340516     PISSN: 14210185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185.65.4.245     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Biederman, I., & Kalocsai, P. (1997). Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London: Biological Sciences, 352, 1203-1219.
2. th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 187-194.
3. Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105-116.
4. Bruce, V. (1994). Stability from variation: The case of face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 47, 5-28.
5. Bruce, V., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1987). The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 109-120.
6. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305-327.
7. Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception, 34, 1117-1134.
8. Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2006). The Mona Lisa effect: Is 'our' Lisa fame or fake? Perception, 35, 411-414.
9. Carbon, C. C., Schweinberger, S. R., Kaufmann, J. M., & Leder, H. (2005). The Thatcher Illusion seen by the brain: An event related brain potentials study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 544-555.
10. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 115, 107-117.
11. Hill, H., Schyns, P. G., & Akamatsu, S. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition, 62, 201-222.
12. Krouse, F. L. (1981). Effects of pose, pose change, and delay on face recognition performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 651-654.
13. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53, 513-536.
14. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2004). Part to whole effects and configural processing in faces. Psychology Science, 46, 531-543.
15. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). When context hinders. Context superiority versus learn-test-compatibilities in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58, 235-250.
16. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 19-29.
17. Liu, C. H., & Chaudhuri, A. (2002). Reassessing the 3/4 view effect in face recognition. Cognition, 83, 31-48.
18. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476-490.
19. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
20. Rhodes, G. (1993). Configural coding, expertise, and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 22, 19-41.
21. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. (1993). What's lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25-57.
22. Schyns, P. G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1993). Conditions for viewpoint dependent face recognition (No. 1432): MIT A.I. Memo.
23. Sieroff, E. (2001). Feature processing and superiority of three-quarter views in face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 46, 272-276.
24. Stevenage, S. V. (1998). Which twin are you? A demonstration of induced categorical perception of identical twin faces. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 39-57.
25. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245.
26. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
27. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 359-380.
28. Valentin, D., Abdi, H., & Edelman, B. (1997). What represents a face? A computational approach for the integration of physiological and psychological data. Perception, 26, 1271-1288.
29. Valentin, D., Abdi, H., Edelman, B., & Posamentier, M. (2001). 2D or not 2D? That is the question: What can we learn from computational models operating on two-dimensional representations of faces? In M. J. Wenger (Ed.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. Scientific psychology series (pp. 429-465). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.