Exploring the perceptual spaces of faces, cars and birds in children and adults

Developmental Science

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 762-768

  Tanaka, James W ^a   Meixner, Tamara L ^a   Kantner, Justin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; CAR; CHILD; FACE; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANIMALS; AUTOMOBILES; BIRDS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 79959299245     PISSN: 1363755X     EISSN: 14677687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01023.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anastasi, J.S., & Rhodes, M.G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1043-1047.
2. Barrett, M. (1995). Early lexical development. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 362-392). Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Bartlett, J.C., Hurry, S., & Thorley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces. Memory & Cognition, 12, 219-228.
4. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253-274.
5. Chang, P.P., Levine, S.C., & Benson, P.J. (2002). Children's recognition of caricatures. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1038-1051.
6. Crookes, K., & McKone, E. (2009). Early maturity of face recognition: no childhood development of holistic processing, novel face encoding, or face-space. Cognition, 111, 219-247.
7. Going, M., & Read, J.D. (1974). Effects of uniqueness, sex of subject, and sex of photograph on facial recognition. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 39, 109-110.
8. Humphreys, K., & Johnson, M.H. (2007). The development of 'face-space' in infancy. Visual Cogniton, 15, 578-598.
9. Johnston, R.A., & Ellis, H.D. (1995). Age effects in the processing of typical and distinctive faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 48, 447-465.
10. Kantner, J., & Tanaka, J.W. (submitted). Category learning produces the atypicality bias in object perception.
11. Krumhansl, C.L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: the interrelationship between similiarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85, 445-463.
12. Lewis, M.B. (2004). Face-space-R: towards a unified account of face recognition. Visual Cognition, 11, 29-69.
13. Light, L.L., Kayra-Stuart, F., & Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 212-228.
14. Meytlis, M., & Sirovich, L. (2007). On the dimensionality of face space. IEEE Transactions of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29, 1262-1267.
15. Mondloch, C.J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31, 553-566.
16. Nishimura, M., Maurer, D., & Gao, X. (2009). Exploring children's face-space: a multidimensional scaling analysis of the mental representation of facial identity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 355-375.
17. O'Toole, A.J., Deffenbacher, K.A., Valentin, D., & Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect. Memory & Cognition, 22, 208-224.
18. Pellicano, E., & Rhodes, G. (2003). Holistic processing of faces in preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 14, 618-622.
19. Quinn, P.C. (1987). The categorical representation of visual pattern information by young infants. Cognition, 27, 147-179.
20. Quinn, P.C. (2002). Beyond prototypes: asymmetries in infant categorization and what they teach us about the mechanisms guiding early knowledge acquisition. In R.V. Kail & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 29, pp. 161-193). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21. Rhodes, G., Byatt, G., Tremewan, T., & Kennedy, A. (1997). Facial distinctiveness and the power of caricatures. Perception, 26, 207-223.
22. Sangrigoli, S., & de Schonen, S. (2004). Effect of visual experience on face processing: a developmental study of inversion and non-native effects. Deveopmental Science, 7, 74-87.
23. Southgate, V., & Meints, K. (2001). Typicality, naming, and category membership in young children. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 5-16.
24. Strauss, M.S. (1979). Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 618-632.
25. Tanaka, J.W., & Corneille, O. (2007). Typicality effects in face and object perception: further evidence for the attractor field model. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 619-627.
26. Tanaka, J.W., Kay, J.B., Grinnell, E., Stansfield, B., & Szechter, L. (1998a). Face recognition in young children: when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Visual Cognition, 5, 479-496.
27. Tanaka, J.W., Giles, M., Kremen, S., & Simon, V. (1998b). Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition. Cognition, 68, 199-220.
28. Tank, D.W., & Hopfield, J.J. (1987). Collective computation in neuron like circuits. Scientific American, 257, 104-114.
29. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161-204.
30. Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 61, 259-273.
31. Vokey, J.R., & Read, J.D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory & Cognition, 20, 291-302.
32. Willenbockel, V., Sadr, J., Fiset, D., Horne, G., Gosselin, F., & Tanaka, J.W. (in press). Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox. Behavioral Research Methods.
33. Wilson, H.R., Loffler, G., & Wilkinson, F. (2002). Synthetic faces, face cubes, and the geometry of face space. Vision Research, 42, 2909-2923.