Information-processing alternatives to holistic perception: Identifying the mechanisms of secondary-level holism within a categorization paradigm

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1290-1313

  Fifić, Mario ^a   Townsend, James T ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic; Face perception; Holistic; Information processing; Selective attention

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77956554573     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020123     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Ashby F.G., Maddox W.T., Lee W.W. On the dangers of averaging across subjects when using multidimensional scaling or the similarity-choice model. Psychological Science 1994, 5:144-151. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00651.x.
2. Ashby F.G., Townsend J.T. Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review 1986, 93:154-179. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.154.
3. Bartlett J.C., Searcy J. Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25:281-316. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1007.
4. Bartlett J.C., Searcy J.H., Abdi H. What are the routes to face recognition?. Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes 2003, 21-47. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. M.A. Peterson, G. Rhodes (Eds.).
5. Busemeyer J.R. Decision making under uncertainty: Simple scalability, fixed sample, and sequential sampling models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1985, 11:538-564. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.538.
6. Carey S., Diamond R. Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children?. Visual Cognition 1994, 1:253-274. doi: 10.1080/13506289408402302.
7. Davidoff J., Donnelly N. Object superiority: A comparison of complete and part probes. Acta Psychologica 1990, 73:225-243. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90024-A.
8. Diamond R., Carey S. Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1986, 115:107-117. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107.
9. Diederich A. Intersensory facilitation of reaction time: Evaluation of counter and diffusion coactivation models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1995, 39:197-215. doi: 10.1006/jmps.1995.1020.
10. Donnelly N., Davidoff J. The mental representations of faces and houses: Issues concerning parts and wholes. Visual Cognition 1999, 6:319-343. doi: 10.1080/135062899395000.
11. Egeth H.E., Dagenbach D. Parallel versus serial processing in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1991, 17:551-560. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.551.
12. Eidels A., Townsend J.T., Algom D. Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition 2010, 114:129-150.
13. Eidels A., Townsend J.T., Pomerantz J.R. Where similarity beats redundancy: The importance of context, higher order similarity, and response assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2008, 34:1441-1463. doi: 10.1037/a0012320.
14. Estes W.K. The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Bulletin 1956, 53:134-140. doi: 10.1037/h0045156.
15. Farah M.J., Tanaka J.W., Drain H.M. What causes the face inversion effect?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995, 21:628-634. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.628.
16. Farah M.J., Wilson K.D., Drain M., Tanaka J.N. What is "special" about face perception?. Psychological Review 1998, 105:482-498. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.482.
17. Fifić, M. (2006). Emerging holistic properties at face value: Assessing characteristics of face perception (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
18. Fifić M., Nosofsky R.M., Little D. Logical-rule models of classification response times: A synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. Psychological Review 2010, 117:309-348.
19. Fifić M., Nosofsky R.M., Townsend J.T. Information-processing architectures in multidimensional classification: A validation test of the systems factorial technology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:356-375. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.356.
20. Fifić M., Townsend J.T., Eidels A. Studying visual search using systems factorial methodology with target-distractor similarity as the factor. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:583-603. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.4.583.
21. Freire A., Lee K., Symons L.A. The face inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception 2000, 29:159-170. doi: 10.1068/p3012.
22. Haig N.D. The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception 1984, 13:505-512. doi: 10.1068/p130505.
23. Hancock K.J., Rhodes G. Contact, configural coding and the other-race effect in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology 2008, 99:45-56. doi: 10.1348/000712607X199981.
24. Hole G.J. Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception 1994, 23:65-74. doi: 10.1068/p230065.
25. Hole G.J., George P.A., Dunsmore V. Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception 1999, 28:341-359. doi: 10.1068/p2622.
26. Homa D., Haver B., Schwartz T. Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory & Cognition 1976, 4:176-185.
27. Hosie J.A., Ellis H.D., Haig N.D. The effect of feature displacement on the perception of well-known faces. Perception 1988, 17:461-474. doi: 10.1068/p170461.
28. Ingvalson E.M., Wenger M.J. A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:14-35.
29. Innes-Ker, A. H. K. (2003). Gestalt perception of emotional expressions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
30. Faces 3 [Computer software] 2006, IQ Biometrix, Inc., Author, Kingwood, TX.
31. Johnson, S. A., Blaha, L. M., Houpt, J. W., & Townsend, J. T. (2009). Systems factorial technology provides new insights on global-local information processing in autism spectrum disorders. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. Laberge D.A. A recruitment theory of simple behavior. Psychometrika 1962, 27:375-396. doi: 10.1007/BF02289645.
33. Leder H., Bruce V. Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 1998, 51:449-473.
34. Leder H., Bruce V. When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 2000, 53:513-536. doi: 10.1080/027249800390583.
35. Leder H., Candrian G., Huber O., Bruce V. Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception 2001, 30:73-83. doi: 10.1068/p2911.
36. Leder H., Carbon C. Part-to-whole effects and configural processing in faces. Psychology Science 2004, 46:531-543.
37. Leder H., Carbon C. When context hinders! Learn-test compatibility in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 2005, 58:235-250. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000936.
38. Levin D.T., Angelone B.L. Visual search for a socially defined feature: What causes the search asymmetry favoring cross-race faces?. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:423-435.
39. Link S.W., Heath R.A. A sequential theory of psychological discrimination. Psychometrika 1975, 40:77-105. doi: 10.1007/BF02291481.
40. Luce R.D. Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization 1986, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
41. Marley A.A.J., Colonius H. The "horse race" random utility model for choice probabilities and reaction times, and its competing risks interpretation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1992, 36:1-20. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(92)90050-H.
42. Maurer D., Le Grand R., Mondloch C.J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:255-260. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.
43. Mermelstein R., Banks W.P., Prinzmetal W. Figural goodness effects in perception and memory. Perception & Psychophysics 1979, 26:472-480.
44. Michel C., Corneille O., Rossion B. Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:911-924. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530805.
45. Mondloch C.J., Geldart S., Maurer D., Le Grand R. Developmental changes in face processing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2003, 86:67-84. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00102-4.
46. Moscovitch D., Moscovitch D.A. Super face-inversion effects for isolated internal or external features, and for fractured faces. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2000, 17:201-219. doi: 10.1080/026432900380571.
47. Murray J.E. The ups and downs of face perception: Evidence for holistic encoding of upright and inverted faces. Perception 2004, 33:387-398. doi: 10.1068/p5188.
48. Pike R. Response latency models for signal detection. Psychological Review 1973, 80:53-68. doi: 10.1037/h0033871.
49. Rakover S.S., Teucher B. Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship. Perception and Psychophysics 1997, 59:752-761.
50. Ratcliff R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review 1978, 85:59-108. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59.
51. Ratcliff R., McKoon G. The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation 2008, 20:873-922. doi: 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.
52. Regenwetter M., Grofman B., Popova A., Messner W., Davis-Stober C.P., Cavagnaro D.R. Behavioural social choice: A status report. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2009, 364:833-843. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0259.
53. Rhodes G. Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception 1988, 17:43-63. doi: 10.1068/p170043.
54. Richler J.J., Bukach C.M., Gauthier I. Context influences holistic processing of non-face objects in the composite task. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2009, 71:530-540. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.3.530.
55. Richler J.J., Gauthier I., Wenger M.J., Palmeri T.J. Holistic processing of faces: Perceptual and decisional components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:328-342. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.328.
56. Richler J.J., Tanaka J.W., Brown D.D., Gauthier I. Why does selective attention to parts fail in face processing?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2008, 34:1356-1368. doi: 10.1037/a0013080.
57. Rossion B., Gauthier I. How does the brain process upright and inverted faces?. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 2002, 1:63-75. doi: 10.1177/1534582302001001004.
58. Schweickert R. A critical path generalization of the additive factor methods analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1978, 18:105-139. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(78)90059-7.
59. Schweickert R., Townsend J.T. A trichotomy: Interactions of factors prolonging sequential and concurrent mental processes in stochastic discrete mental (PERT) networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1989, 33:328-347. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(89)90013-8.
60. Searcy J.H., Bartlett J.C. Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1996, 22:904-915. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.904.
61. Sergent J. An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology 1984, 75:221-242.
62. Sternberg S. The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, Amsterdam 1969, 30:276-315. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9.
63. Sung K. Serial and parallel attentive visual searches: Evidence from cumulative distribution functions of response times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:1372-1388. doi: 10.1037/a0011852.
64. Tanaka J.W., Farah M.J. Second-order relational properties and the inversion effect: Testing a theory of face perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1991, 50:367-372.
65. Tanaka J.W., Farah M.J. Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 1993, 46:225-245.
66. Tanaka J.W., Kiefer M., Bukach C.M. A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a crosscultural study. Cognition 2004, 93:B1-B9. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011.
67. Tanaka J.W., Sengco J.A. Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition 1997, 25:583-592.
68. Thomas R.D. Characterizing perceptual interactions in face identification using multidimensional signal detection theory. Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges 2001, 193-227. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M.J. Wenger, J.T. Townsend (Eds.).
69. Thomas R.D. Perceptual interactions of facial dimensions in speeded classification and identification. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:625-650.
70. Thornton T.L., Gilden D.L. Parallel and serial processes in visual search. Psychological Review 2007, 114:71-103. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.71.
71. Townsend, J. T. (1969). Mock parallel and serial models and experimental detection of these. Paper presented at the Purdue Centennial Symposium on Information Processing, Purdue, IN.
72. Townsend J.T. A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. Perception and Psychophysics 1971, 10:161-163.
73. Townsend J.T. Some results concerning the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1972, 25:168-199.
74. Townsend J.T. Uncovering mental processes with factorial experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1984, 28:363-400. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(84)90007-5.
75. Townsend J.T., Ashby F.G. The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
76. Townsend J.T., Fifić M. Parallel versus serial processing and individual differences in high-speed search in human memory. Perception & Psychophysics 2004, 66:953-962.
77. Townsend J.T., Fifić M., Neufeld R.W.J. Assessment of mental architecture in clinical/cognitive research. Psychological clinical science: Papers in honor of Richard M. McFall 2007, 223-258. Psychology Press, New York, NY. T.A. Treat, R.R. Bootzin, T.B. Baker (Eds.).
78. Townsend J.T., Nozawa G. Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1995, 39:321-359. doi: 10.1006/jmps.1995.1033.
79. Townsend J.T., Thomas R. Stochastic dependencies in parallel and serial models: Effects on systems factorial interactions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1994, 38:1-34. doi: 10.1006/jmps.1994.1001.
80. Townsend J.T., Wenger M.J. The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:391-418.
81. Townsend J.T., Wenger M.J. A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review 2004, 111:1003-1035. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1003.
82. Van Zandt T., Colonius H., Proctor R.W. A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2000, 7:208-256.
83. Vickers D. Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. Ergonomics 1970, 13:37-58. doi: 10.1080/00140137008931117.
84. Wenger M.J., Ingvalson E.M. A decisional component of holistic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:872-892. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.5.872.
85. Wenger M.J., Ingvalson E.M. Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29:1106-1118. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1106.
86. Wenger M.J., Townsend J.T. Faces as Gestalt stimuli: Process characteristics. Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges 2001, 229-284. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M.J. Wenger, J.T. Townsend (Eds.).
87. Wenger M.J., Townsend J.T. On the costs and benefits of faces and words: Process characteristics of feature search in highly meaningful stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:755-779. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.755.
88. What Jennifer Saw 1997, Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/thompson.html.
89. Young A.W., Hellawell D., Hay D.C. Configurational information in face perception. Perception 1987, 16:747-759. doi: 10.1068/p160747.