Faces as perceptual wholes: The interplay between component and configural properties in face processing

Visual Cognition

Volumn 18, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1034-1062

  Kimchi, Ruth ^a   Amishav, Rama ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

Configural and holistic processing; Configural properties; Face processing; Facial components; Interactive processing of component and configural properties

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EYE; FACE PROFILE; FEMALE; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERACTIVE PROCESSING; MALE; MOUTH; NORMAL HUMAN; NOSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; SIGNAL PROCESSING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 77954642524     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506281003619986     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Amishav, R., & Kimchi, R. (in press). Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in face processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.
2. Anaki, D., & Moscovitch, M. (2007). When a face is (or is not) more than the sun of its parts: Configural and analytic processes in facial temporal integration. Visual Cognition, 15, 741-763
3. Ashworth, A. R. S., III, Vuong, Q. C., Rossion, B., & Tarr, M. J. (2008). Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect? Visual Cognition, 16, 754-784.
4. Bartlett, J. C., & Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281-316.
5. Bartlett, J. C., Searcy, J. H., & Abdi, H. (2003). What are the routes to face recognition? In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 21-52). New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Barton, J. J., Radcliffe, N., Cherkasova, M. V., Edelman, J., & Intriligator, J. M. (2006). Information processing during face recognition: The effects of familiarity, inversion, and morphing on scanning fixations. Perception, 35, 1089-1105.
7. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77,305-327.
8. Bruyer, R., & Coget, M. C. (1987). Features of laterally displayed faces: Saliency or top-down processing? Acta Psychologica, 66, 103-114.
9. Cabeza, R., & Kato, T. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429-433.
10. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253-274.
11. Collishaw, S. M., & Hole, G. J. (2000). Is there a linear or a nonlinear relationship between rotation and configural processing of faces? Perception, 31, 287-296.
12. Cooper, E. E., & Wojan, T. J. (2000). Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 470-488.
13. Davies, G., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J. (1977). Cue saliency in faces as assessed by the "Photofit" technique. Perception, 6, 263-269.
14. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
15. Donnelly, N., & Davidoff, J. (1999). The mental representations of faces and houses: Issues concerning parts and wholes. Visual Cognition, 6, 319-343.
16. Farah, M. J., Tanaka, J. W., & Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628-634.
17. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. W. (1998). What is "special" about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
18. Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159-170.
19. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Garner, W. R. (1978). Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In E. H. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 99-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Garner, W. R. (1981). The analysis of unanalyzed perceptions. In M. Kubovy & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 119-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M.J. (1997). Becoming a "Greeble" expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37(12), 1673-1682.
23. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2002). Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 431-446.
24. Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are "spatial": Holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1023-1039.
25. Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception, 13, 505-512.
26. Haig, N. D. (1986). Exploring recognition with interchanged facial features. Perception, 15, 235-247.
27. Harris, A., & Nakayama, K. (2008). Rapid adaptation of the M170 response: Importance of face parts. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 467-476.
28. Hole, G. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65-74.
29. Homa, D., Haver, B., & Schwartz, T. (1976). Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory and Cognition, 4, 176-185.
30. Hosie, J. A., Ellis, H. D., & Haig, N. D. (1988). The effect of feature displacement on the perception of well-known faces. Perception, 17, 461-474.
31. Ingvalson, E. M., & Wenger, M. J. (2005). A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 14-35.
32. Kemp, R., McManus, C., & Pigott, T. (1990). Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception, 19, 531-543.
33. Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24-38.
34. Kimchi, R. (1994). The role of wholistic/configural properties versus global properties in visual form perception. Perception, 23, 489-504.
35. Kimchi, R. (2003). Relative dominance of holistic and component properties in the perceptual organization of visual objects. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 235-268). New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Konar, Y., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38-43.
37. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51A, 449-473.
38. 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, 53A, 513-536.
39. Leder, H., Candrian, G., Huber, O., & Bruce, V. (2001). Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception, 30, 73-83.
40. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.
41. Macho, S., & Leder, H. (1998). Your eyes only? A test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24,1486-1500.
42. Martelli, M., Majaj, N. J., & Pelli, D. G. (2005). Are faces processed like words? A diagnostic test for recognition by parts. Journal of Vision, 5, 58-70.
43. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255-260.
44. McKone, E. (2004). Isolating the special component of face recognition: Peripheral identification and a Mooney face. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 181-197.
45. McKone, E. (2008). Configural processing and face viewpoint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 310-327.
46. Mermelstein, R., Banks, W. P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1979). Figural goodness effects in perception and memory. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 472-480.
47. Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31, 553-566.
48. Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., & Behrmann, M. (1997). What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 555-604.
49. Murray, J. E., Yong, E., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11, 492-496.
50. Pellicano, E., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2006). Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces? Developmental Science, 9, 270-277.
51. Peterson, M. A., & Rhodes, G. (2003). Analytic and holistic processing*the view through different lenses. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 3-19). New York: Oxford University Press.
52. Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 141-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
53. Pomerantz, J. R., Agrawal, A., Jewell, S. W., Jeong, M., Khan, H., & Lozano, S. C. (2003). Contour grouping inside and outside of facial contexts. Acta Psychologica, 114, 245-271.
54. Pomerantz, J. R., & Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 635-649.
55. Rakover, S. S., & Teucher, B. (1997). Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 752-761.
56. Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, 43-63.
57. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What's lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25-57.
58. Riesenhuber, M., Jarudi, I., Gilad, S., & Sinha, T. (2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings in Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl. 6), S448-S450.
59. Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2007). No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks. Cognition, 103, 34-79.
60. Rock, I. (1986). The description and analysis of object and event perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 1-71). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
61. Rossion, B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128, 274-289.
62. Rotshtein, P., Geng, J. J., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and magnetic resonance imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1435-1452.
63. Schwaninger, A., Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2003). Expert face processing: Specialization and constraints. In G. Schwarzer & H. Leder (Eds.), Development of face processing (pp. 81-97). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
64. Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J., & Collishaw, S. M. (2002). Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2525,643-650.
65. Schwarzer, G., & Massaro, D. W. (2001). Modeling face identification processing in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 139-161.
66. Schyns, P. G., Bonnar, L., & Gosselin, F. (2002). Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the use of visual information. Psychological Science, 13, 402-409.
67. 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.
68. Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., Gold, J. M., & Bennett, P. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14, 391-396.
69. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
70. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225-245.
71. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (2003). The holistic representations of faces. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 53-74). New York: Oxford University Press.
72. Tanaka, J. W., Kay, J. B., Grinnell, E., Stansfield, B., & Szechter, L. (1998). Face recognition in young children: When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Visual Cognition, 5, 479-496.
73. Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25, 583-592.
74. Tversky, A., & Krantz, D. H. (1969). Similarity of schematic faces: A test of interdimensional additivity. Perception and Psychophysics, 5, 124-128.
75. Valentin, D., Abdi, H., & Edelman, B. (1999). From rotation to disfiguration: Testing a dual-strategy model for recognition of faces across view angles. Perception, 28, 817-824.
76. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471-491.
77. Williams, M. A., Moss, S. A., & Bradshaw, J. L. (2004). A unique look at face processing: The impact of masked faces on the processing of facial features. Cognition, 91, 155-172.
78. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.
79. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747-759.
80. Yovel, G., & Duchaine, B. (2006). Specialized face perception mechanisms extract both part and spacing information: Evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 580-593.
81. Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889-898.