The context effect in face matching: Effects of feedback

Vision Research

Volumn 51, Issue 19, 2011, Pages 2121-2131

  Meinhardt Injac, Bozana ^a   Persike, Malte ^b   Meinhardt, Günter ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Context effect; Feedback; Holistic face processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FACE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FEEDBACK; VISUAL INFORMATION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FACE; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 80053111735     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: 18785646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ahissar M., Hochstein S. Attentional control of early perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 1993, 90:5718-5722.
2. Ahissar M., Hochstein S. Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning. Nature 1997, 378:401-406.
3. Ahissar M., Hochstein S. The spread of attention and learning in feature search: Effects of target distribution and task difficulty. Vision Research 2000, 40:1349-1364.
4. Ahissar M., Hochstein S. The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 2004, 8:329-334.
5. Barton J.J., Keenan P.J., Bass T. Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effect of inversion and viewing duration. British Journal of Psychology 2001, 92:527-549.
6. Bentin S., McCarthy G., Perez E., Puce A., Allison T. Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1996, 8:551-565.
7. Davies G., Ellis H., Shepherd J. Cue saliency in faces as assessed by the 'Photofit' technique. Perception 1977, 6:263-269.
8. Dupuis-Roy N., Gosselin F. Perceptual learning without signal. Vision Research 2007, 47:349-356.
9. Eimer M. Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition. Clinical Neurophysiology 2000, 111:694-705.
10. Enroth-Cugell C., Robson J.G. The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Physiology (London) 1966, 240:421-456.
11. Fahle M., Morgan M. No transfer of perceptual learning between similar stimuli in the same retinal position. Current Biology 1996, 6:292-297.
12. Farah M.J., Wilson K.D., Drain M., Tanaka J.W. What is special about face perception?. Psychological Review 1998, 105:482-498.
13. Farivar, R., & Chaudhuri, A. (2003). I can't see your eyes well 'cause your nose is too short. In R. Alterman, & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 378-383). Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
14. Fraser I.H., Craig G.L., Parker D.M. Reaction time measures of features saliency in schematic faces. Perception 1990, 19:661-673.
15. Gauthier I., Curran T., Curby K.M., Collins D. Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6:428-432.
16. Goffaux V. The horizontal and vertical relations in upright faces are transmitted by different spatial frequency ranges. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:119-126.
17. Goffaux V. Spatial interactions in upright and inverted faces: Re-exploration of spatial scale influence. Vision Research 2009, 49:774-781.
18. Goffaux V., Rossion B. Faces are spatial holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:1023-1039.
19. Goffaux V., Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:995-1002.
20. Haig N.D. How faces differ - A new comparative technique. Perception 1985, 14:601-615.
21. Haig N.D. Exploring recognition with interchanged facial features. Perception 1986, 15:235-247.
22. Herzog M.H., Fahle M. The role of feedback in learning a vernier discrimination task. Vision Research 1997, 37:2133-2141.
23. Herzog M.H., Fahle M. Effects of biased feedback on learning and deciding in a vernier discrimination task. Vision Research 1999, 39 4232-4243.
24. Hole G.J. Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception 1994, 23:65-74.
25. Henderson J.M., Falk R.J., Minut S., Dyer F.C., Mahadevan S. Gaze control for face learning and recognition by humans and machines. From fragments to objects: Segmentation processes in vision 2001, 463-482. Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Shipley, P. Kellman (Eds.).
26. Jacques C., Rossion B. The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: Electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. Journal of Vision 2009, 9:1-16.
27. Karni A., Sagi D. Where practice makes perfect. Evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 1991, 88:4966-4970.
28. Kuefner D., Jacques C., Prieto E.A., Rossion B. Electrophysiological correlates of the composite face illusion: Disentangling perceptual and decisional components of holistic face processing in the human brain. Brain and Cognition 2010, 74:225-238.
29. Maurer D., Le Grand R., Mondloch C.J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:255-259.
30. Meinhardt G., Grabbe Y. Attentional control in learning to discriminate bars and gratings. Experimental Brain Research 2002, 142:539-550.
31. Meinhardt-Injac B., Persike M., Meinhardt G. The time course of face matching by internal and external features: Effects of context and inversion. Vision Research 2010, 50:1598-1611.
32. Meinhardt-Injac B., Persike M., Meinhardt G. The time course of face matching for featural and relational image manipulations. Acta Psychologica 2011, 137:48-55.
33. Riesenhuber M., Wolff B.S. Task effects, performance levels, features, configurations, and holistic face processing: A reply to Rossion. Acta Psychologica 2009, 132:286-292.
34. Riesenhuber M., Jarudi I., Gilad S., Sinha P. Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 2004, 271(Suppl.):S448-S450.
35. 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.
36. Richler J.J., Mack M.L., Gauthier I., Palmeri T.J. Holistic processing happens at a glance. Vision Research 2009, 49:2856-2861.
37. Richler J.J., Bukach C.M., Gauthier I. Context influences holistic processing of nonface objects in the composite task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2009, 71:530-540.
38. Roelfsema P.R., van Ooyen A., Watanabe T. Perceptual learning rules based on reinforcers and attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010, 14:64-71.
39. Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:274-289.
40. Rossion B., Boremanse A. Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: Evidence from the face composite illusion. Journal of Vision 2008, 8:1-13.
41. Roufs J.A. Dynamic properties of vision - I. Experimental relationships between flicker and flash threshold. Vision Research 1972, 12:261-278.
42. Roufs J.A., Blommaert F.J. Temporal impulse and step responses of the human eye obtained psychophysically by means of a drift-correcting perturbation technique. Vision Research 1981, 21:1203-1221.
43. Schyns P.G., Oliva A. From blobs to boundary edges: Evidence for time and spatial scale dependent scene recognition. Psychological Science 1994, 5:195-200.
44. Seitz A.R., Watanabe T. Is subliminal learning really passive?. Nature 2003, 422:36.
45. Seitz A., Watanabe T. A unified model for perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 2005, 9:329-334.
46. Sekunova A., Barton J.J.S. The effects of face inversion on the perception of long-range and local spatial relations in eye and mouth configuration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:91129-91135.
47. Sergent J. Microgenesis of face perception. Aspects of face process information in recognition tasks 1986, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, A.M. Young (Eds.).
48. Shiu L.P., Pashler H. Improvement in line orientation discrimination is retinally local but dependent on cognitive set. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 52:582-588.
49. Sinha P., Poggio T. I think I know that face.... Nature 1996, 384:404.
50. Sugase Y., Yamane S., Ueno S., Kawano K. Global and fine information coded by single neurons in the temporal visual cortex. Nature 1999, 400:869-873.
51. Tanaka J.W., Farah M.J. Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1993, 45:34-79.
52. Tanaka J.W., Sengco J.A. Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition 1997, 25:583-592.
53. Thomas R.D. Perceptual interactions of facial dimensions in speeded classification and identification. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:625-650.
54. Tovee M.J., Rolls E.T., Treves A., Bellis R.P. Information encoding and the responses of single neurons in the primate temporal visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 1993, 70:640-654.
55. Victor J.D., Shapley R.M. Receptive field mechanisms of cat X and Y retinal ganglion cells. The Journal of General Physiology 1979, 74:275-298.
56. Williams C.C., Henderson J. The face inversion effect is not a consequence of aberrant eye movements. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:1977-1985.
57. Young A.W., Hellawell D., Hay D.C. Configurational information in face perception. Perception 1987, 16:747-759.
58. Yovel G., Kanwisher N. Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron 2004, 44:889-898.