A review and clarification of the terms "holistic," "configural," and "relational" in the face perception literature

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 3, Issue DEC, 2012, Pages

  Piepers, Daniel W ^a   Robbins, Rachel A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Composite task; Configural; Holistic; Inversion; Moving faces; Part whole task; Relational

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874557491     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00559     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Abbas, Z., and Duchaine, B. (2008). The role of holistic processing in judgments of facial attractiveness. Perception 37,1187-1196.
2. Ambadar, Z., Schooler, J. W., and Cohn, J. (2005). Deciphering the enigmatic face: the importance of facial dynamics in interpreting sub-tle facial expressions. Psychol. Sci. 16, 403-410.
3. Bartlett, J., Searcy, J. H., and Abdi, H. (2003). "What are the routes to face recognition?" in Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes, eds M. Peter-son and G. Rhodes (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 21-52.
4. Baudouin, J. Y., and Humphreys, G. W. (2006). Configural information in gender categorisation. Perception 35, 531-540.
5. Bhatt, R. S., Bertin, E., Hayden, A., and Reed, A. (2005). Face processing in infancy: developmental changes in the use of different kinds of rela-tional information. Child Dev. 76, 169-181.
6. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev. 94, 115-147.
7. Calder, A. J., Young, A. W., Keane, J., and Dean, M. (2000). Configural infor-mation in facial expression percep-tion. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 527-551.
8. Cassia, V. M., Picozzi, M., Kuefner, D., Bricolo, E., and Turati, C. (2009). Holistic processing for faces and cars in preschool-aged chil-dren and adults: evidence from the composite effect. Dev. Sci. 12, 236-248.
9. Christie, F., and Bruce, V. (1998). The role of dynamic information in the recognition of unfamiliar faces. Mem. Cognit. 26, 780-790.
10. Davidoff, J., and Donnelly, N. (1990). Object superiority: a comparison of complete and part probes. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 73, 225-243.
11. Diamond, R., and Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115, 107-117.
12. Donnelly, N., and Davidoff, J. (1999). The mental representations of faces and houses: issues concerning parts and wholes. Vis. Cogn. 6, 319-343.
13. Duchaine, B. C., Yovel, G., Butterworth, E. J., and Nakayama, K. (2006). Prosopagnosia as an impairment to face-specific mechanisms: elimina-tion of the alternative hypotheses in a developmental case. Cogn. Neu-ropsychol. 23,714-747.
14. Farah, M. J. (1996). Is face recogni-tion 'special'? Evidence from neu-ropsychology. Behav. Brain Res. 76, 181-189.
15. Gauthier, I., and Bukach, C. (2007). Should we reject the expertise hypothesis? Cognition 103, 322-330.
16. Gauthier, I., and Tarr, M. J. (2002). Unravelling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behaviour. J. Exp. Psy-chol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28, 431-446.
17. Gauthier, I., Williams, P., Tarr, M. J., and Tanaka, J. (1998). Training 'greeble' experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Res. 38, 2401-2428.
18. Goffaux, V., and Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are "spatial" - holistic face per-ception is supported by low spatial frequencies. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 32, 1023-1039.
19. Gosselin, F., and Schyns, P. G. (2001). Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Res. 41, 2261-2271.
20. Hoffman, D. D., and Richards, W A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cogni-tion 18,65-69.
21. Hole, G., and George, P. (2011). Evi-dence for holistic processing of facial age. Vis. Cogn. 19,585-615.
22. Hole, G. J. (1994). Configurational fac-tors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception 23, 65-74.
23. Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., and Morton, J. (1991). Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition 40, 1-19.
24. Kanwisher, N., and Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: a corti-cal region specialized for the per-ception of faces. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2109-2128.
25. Knight, B., and Johnston, A. (1997). The role of movement in face recogni-tion. Vis. Cogn. 4, 265-273.
26. Lander, K., and Bruce, V. (2003). The role of motion in learning new faces. Vis. Cogn. 10,897-912.
27. Xiao, N. G., Quinn, P. C., Ge, L., and Lee, K. (2012). Rigid facial motion influ-ences featural, but not holistic, face processing. Vision Res. 57, 26-34.
28. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. J. Exp. Psychol. 81, 141-145.
29. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., and Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational informa-tion in face perception. Perception 16,747-759.
30. Yovel, G. (2009). The shape of facial fea-tures and the spacing among them generate similar inversion effects: a replyto Rossion (2008). Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 132,293-299.
31. Yovel, G., Pelc, T., and Lubetzky, I. (2010). It's all in your head: why is the body inversion effect abol-ished for headless bodies? J. Exp. Psychol Hum. Percept. Perform. 36, 759-767.