Sensitivity to spacing changes in faces and nonface objects in preschool-aged children and adults

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Volumn 109, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 454-467

  Macchi Cassia, Viola ^a   Turati, Chiara ^a   Schwarzer, Gudrun ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adults; Cars; Discrimination; Faces; Preschool aged children; Second order relations; Spacing changes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 79955474942     PISSN: 00220965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Borst G., Kosslyin S. Varying the scope of attention alters the encoding of categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:2769-2772.
2. Bruce V., Campbell R.N., Doherty-Sneddon G., Import A., Langton S., McAuley S., et al. Testing face processing skills in children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 2000, 18:319-333.
3. Carey S., Diamond R. From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. Science 1977, 195:312-314.
4. Carey S., Diamond R. Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children?. Visual Cognition 1994, 1:253-274.
5. Carey S., Diamond R., Woods B. Development of face recognition: A maturational component?. Developmental Psychology 1980, 16:257-269.
6. Crookes K., McKone E. Early maturity of face recognition: No childhood development of holistic processing, novel face encoding, or face-space. Cognition 2009, 111:219-247.
7. Deruelle C., de Schonen S. Hemispheric asymmetries in visual pattern processing in infancy. Brain and Cognition 1991, 16:151-179.
8. Deruelle C., de Schonen S. Pattern processing in infancy: Shape and location of components are not processed by the same hemisphere. Infant Behavior and Development 1995, 18:123-132.
9. Deruelle C., de Schonen S. Do the right and left hemispheres attend to the same visuospatial information within a face in infancy?. Developmental Neuropsychology 1998, 14:535-554.
10. Diamond R., Carey S. Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1986, 115:107-117.
11. Farkas L.G. Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine 1994, Elsevier, New York. 2nd ed.
12. Farroni T., Valenza E., Simion F., Umiltà C. Configural processing at birth: Evidence for perceptual organization. Perception 2000, 29:355-372.
13. Hayden A., Bhatt R.S., Reed A., Corbly C.R., Joseph J.E. The development of expert face processing: Are infants sensitive to normal differences in second-order relational information?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2007, 97:85-98.
14. Johnston R.A., Ellis H. The development of face recognition. Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition: Explorations in face space 1995, 1-23. Routledge, London. T. Valentine (Ed.).
15. Kuefner D., Macchi Cassia V., Picozzi M., Bricolo E. Do all babies look alike? Evidence for an other-age effect in adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:807-820.
16. Kuefner D., Macchi Cassia V., Vescovo E., Picozzi M. Experience acquired in adulthood enhances holistic face processing: Evidence from the other-age effect. Visual Cognition 2010, 18:11-25.
17. Leder H., Carbon C.C. Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology 2006, 97:19-29.
18. Macchi Cassia, V. (2011). Age-biases in face processing: The effects of experience across development. Unpublished manuscript, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca.
19. Macchi Cassia V., Kuefner D., Picozzi M., Vescovo E. Early experience predicts later plasticity for face processing: Evidence for the reactivation of dormant effects. Psychological Science 2009, 20:853-859.
20. Macchi Cassia V., Picozzi M., Kuefner D., Bricolo E., Turati C. Holistic processing for faces and cars in preschool-aged children and adults: Evidence from the composite effect. Developmental Science 2009, 12:236-248.
21. Macchi Cassia V., Simion F., Milani I., Umiltà C. Dominance of global visual properties at birth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2002, 4:398-411.
22. Matheson H.E., McMullen P.A. A contextual effect of 2nd-order configural processing of non-face objects by non-experts. Perception 2009, 38:1072-1086.
23. Maurer D., Le Grand R., Mondloch C.J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:255-260.
24. McKone E., Boyer B.L. Sensitivity of 4-year-olds to featural and second-order relational changes in face distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2006, 94:134-162.
25. Mondloch C.J., Dobson K.S., Parsons J., Maurer D. Why 8-year-olds can't tell the difference between Steve Martin and Paul Newman: Factors contributing to the slow development of sensitivity to the spacing of facial features. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2004, 89:159-181.
26. 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.
27. Mondloch C.J., Le Grand R., Maurer D. Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception 2002, 31:553-566.
28. Mondloch C.J., Leis A., Maurer D. Recognizing the face of Johnny, Suzy, and me: Insensitivity to the spacing among features at 4years of age. Child Development 2006, 77:234-243.
29. Mondloch C.J., Maurer D., Ahola S. Becoming a face expert. Psychological Science 2006, 17:930-934.
30. Mondloch C.J., Thomson K. Limitations in 4-year-old children's sensitivity to the spacing among facial features. Child Development 2008, 79:1513-1523.
31. Nishimura M., Maurer D. The effect of categorisation on sensitivity to second-order relations in novel objects. Perception 2008, 37:584-601.
32. Pellicano E., Rhodes G. Holistic processing of faces in preschool children and adults. Psychological Science 2003, 14:618-622.
33. Pellicano E., Rhodes G., Peters M. Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces?. Developmental Science 2006, 9:270-277.
34. Picozzi M., Macchi Cassia V., Turati C., Vescovo E. The effect of inversion on 3- to 5-year-olds' recognition of face and nonface visual objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2009, 102:487-502.
35. Quinn P., Bhatt R. Learning perceptual organization in infancy. Psychological Science 2005, 16:511-515.
36. Quinn P., Bhatt R., Hayden A. Young infants readily use proximity to organize visual pattern information. Acta Psychologica 2008, 127:289-298.
37. Robbins R., Nishimura M., Mondloch C., Lewis T., Maurer D. Deficits in sensitivity to spacing after early visual deprivation in humans: A comparison of human faces, monkey faces, and houses. Developmental Psychobiology 2010, 52:775-781.
38. Sangrigoli S., de Schonen S. The effect of visual experience on face processing: A developmental study of inversion and non-native effects. Developmental Science 2004, 7:74-87.
39. Schwarzer G. Development of face processing: The effect of face inversion. Child Development 2000, 71:391-401.
40. Turati C., di Giorgio E., Bardi L., Simion F. Holistic face processing in newborns, 3-month-old infants, and adults: Evidence from the composite effect. Child Development 2010, 81:1894-1905.
41. Turati C., Sangrigoli S., Ruel J., de Schonen S. Evidence of the face inversion effect in 4-month-old infants. Infancy 2004, 6:275-297.
42. Want S., Pascalis O., Coleman M., Blades M. Face facts: Is the development of face recognition in early and middle childhood really so special?. The development of face processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives 2003, 207-221. Nova Science, New York. O. Pascalis, A. Slater (Eds.).
43. Yovel G., Kanwisher N. Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron 2004, 44:889-898.
44. Yovel G., Kanwisher M. The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15:933-939.