Composite faces are not processed holistically: evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 77, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 2037-2060

  Fitousi, Daniel ^a  

^a ARIEL UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Face recognition

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ATTENTION; FACE; FACIAL RECOGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILLUSION; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ATTENTION; FACE; FACIAL RECOGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL;

EID: 84938415841     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-015-0887-4     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Algom, D., & Fitousi, D. (2014). Half a century of research on Garner’s interference and the separability-integrality distinction. Manuscript under review.
2. Amishav, R., & Kimchi, R. (2010). Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 743–748.
3. Ashby, F.G., Maddox, W.T., & Lee, W.W. (1994). On the dangers of averaging across subjects when using multidimensional scaling or the similarity choice model. Psychological Science, 5, 144–151.
4. Ashby, F.G., & Townsend, J.T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154–179.
5. Avidan, G., Tanzer, M., & Behrmann, M. (2011). Impaired holistic processing in congenital prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2541–2552.
6. Bradshaw, J.L., & Wallace, G. (1971). Models for the processing and identification of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 443–448.
7. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.
8. Colonius, H., & Diederich, A. (2006). The race model inequality: interpreting a geometric measure of the amount of violation. Psychological Review, 113, 148–154.
9. Campbell, C.S., Schwartzer, G., & Massaro, D.W. (2001). Face perception: An information processing perspective. In M. J. Wenger, & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition. (pp. 285–346). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
10. Copeland, A.M., & Wenger, M.J. (2006). An investigation of perceptual and decisional influences on the perception of hierarchical forms. Perception, 35, 511–529.
11. Cornes, V., Donnelly, N., Godwin, H., & Wenger, M.J. (2011). Perceptual and decisional factors affecting the detection of the Thatcher illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 645–668.
12. Curby, K.M., Goldstein, R.R., & Blacker, K. (2013). Disrupting perceptual grouping of face parts impairs holistic face processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(1), 83–91.
13. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
14. Donnelly, N., Cornes, K., & Menneer, T. (2012). An examination of the processing capacity of features in the Thatcher illusion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1475–1487.
15. Dyson, B.J., & Quinlan, P.T. (2010). Decomposing the Garner interference paradigm: Evidence for dissociations between macrolevel and microlevel performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1676–1691.
16. Eidels, A., Townsend, J.T., & Algom, D. (2010). Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition, 114, 129–150.
17. Ellison, J.W., & Massaro, D.W. (1997). Featural evaluation, integration, and judgment of facial affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 213–226.
18. Estes, W.K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Review, 53, 134–140.
19. Etcoff, N.L. (1984). Selective attention to facial identity and emotion. Neuropsychologia, 22, 281–295.
20. Farah, M.J., Wilson, K.D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J.N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
21. Fific, M., Little, D.R., & Nosofsky, R.M. (2010). Logical-rule models of classification response times: A synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. Psychological Review, 117(2), 309–348.
22. Fific, M., Nosofsky, R., & Townsend, J. (2008). Information processing architecture in multidimensional classification: A validation test of the system factorial technology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Psychophysics, 34, 356–375.
23. Fifić, M., & Townsend, J.T. (2010). 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, 36(5), 1290–1313.
24. Fifić, M., Townsend, J.T., & Eidels, A. (2008). Studying visual search using systems factorial methodology with target–distractor similarity as the factor. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(4), 583–603.
25. Fitousi, D. (2013). Mutual information, perceptual independence, and holistic face perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 983–1000.
26. Fitousi, D. (2014). On the internal representation of numerical magnitude and physical size. Experimental Psychology, 61, 149–163.
27. Fitousi, D., Shaki, S., & Algom, D. (2009). The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 71. 143–155.
28. Fitousi, D., & Wenger, M.J. (2011). Processing capacity under perceptual and cognitive load: A closer look at load theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 781–798.
29. Fitousi, D., & Wenger, M.J. (2013). Variants of independence in the perception of facial identity and expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 39, 133–155.
30. Fitousi, D., Wenger, M.J., der Heide, R.V., & Bittner, J. (2010). Attentional weighting in configural face processing. Naples: Poster presented at the 2010 Meeting of the Vision Science Society.
31. Gal, P.L., & Bruce, V. (2002). Evaluating the independence of sex and expression in judgment of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 230–243.
32. Galton, F. (1879). Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons into a single, resultant, figure. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 8, 132–144.
33. Ganel, T., & Goshen-Gottstein, Y. (2004). Effects of familiarity on the perceptual integrality of the identity and expression of faces: The parallel-route hypothesis revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 583– 597.
34. Garner, W.R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. New York: Wiley.
35. Garner, W.R. (1978). Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization, pp. 99–121. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
36. Garner, W.R., & Felfoldy, G.L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.
37. Garner, W.R., Hake, H.W., & Eriksen, C.W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63, 149– 159.
38. Garner, W.R., & Morton, J. (1969). Perceptual independence: Definitions, models, and experimental paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 233–259.
39. Gold, J.M., Mundy, P.J., & Tjan, B.S. (2012). The perception of a face is no more than the some of its parts. Psychological Science, 23, 427–434.
40. Grice, G.R., Canham, L., & Gwynne, J.W. (1984). Absence of a redundant signals effect in a reaction time task with divided attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 565–570.
41. Hole, G.J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74.
42. Houpt, J.W., Blaha, L.M., McIntire, J.P., Havig, P.R., & Townsend, J.T. (2013). Systems factorial technology with r. Behavior Research Methods. 46, 307–330.
43. Houpt, J.W., & Townsend, J.T. (2012). Statistical measures for workload capacity analysis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 341–355.
44. Ingvalson, E.M., & Wenger, M.J. (2005). A strong test of the dual mode hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 14–35.
45. Kadlec, H., & Townsend, J.T. (1992). Signal detection analysis of dimensional interactions. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition. (pp. 181–228). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
46. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
47. Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 479–509.
48. Konar, Y., Bennet, P.J., & Sekuler, A. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38–43.
49. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A, 513–536.
50. Loftus, G.R., Oberg, M.A., & Dillon, A.M. (2004). Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. Psychological Review, 111, 835–863.
51. Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
52. Logan, G.D., Van Zandt, T., Verbruggen, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control. Psychological Review, 121(1), 66–95.
53. Luce, R.D. (1986). Reaction times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Luce, R.D., & Tukey, J.W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27.
55. Macho, S., & Leder, H. (1998). Your eyes only? a test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1486–1500.
56. Maddox, W.T. (1992). Perceptual and decisional separability. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition. (pp. 147–180). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
57. Maddox, W.T., & Ashby, F.G. (1996). Perceptual separability, decisional separability, and the identification-speeded classification relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 795–817.
58. Maris, G., & Maris, E. (2003). Testing the race model inequality: A nonparametric approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47(5), 507–514.
59. Massaro, D.W., & Friedman, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information. Psychological Review, 97, 225–252.
60. Maurer, D., LeGrand, R., & Mondloch, C.J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
61. Melara, R.D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.
62. Mestry, N., Menneer, T., Wenger, M.J., Benikos, N., McCarthy, R.A., & Donnelly, N. (2014). The role of configurality in the Thatcher illusion: An ERP study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–8.
63. Mestry, N., Menneer, T., Wenger, M.J., & Donnelly, N. (2012). Identifying sources of configurality in three face processing tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–14.
64. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.
65. Miller, J. (1986). Timecourse and coactivation in bimodal divided attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 331–343.
66. Mordkoff, J., & Egeth, H.E. (1993). Response time and accuracy revisited: Converging support for the interactive race model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 981–991.
67. Mordkoff, J., & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 520–538.
68. Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76(2), 165–178.
69. Movellan, J.R., & McClelland, J.L. (2001). The Morton-Massaro law of information integration: Implications for models of perception. Psychological Review, 108, 113–148.
70. O’Toole, A.J., Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (2001). Quantitative models of perceiving and remembering faces: Precedents and possibilities. In M. J. Wenger, & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. (pp. 1–38). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
71. Pomerantz, J.R. (1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In E. C. Schwab, & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Visual perception. (pp. 1–30). New York: Academic.
72. Pomerantz, J.R., Agrawal, A., Jewell, S.W., Jeong, M., Khan, H., & Lozano, S.C. (2003). Contour grouping inside and outside of facial contexts. Acta Psychologica, 114, 245–271.
73. Pomerantz, J.R., & Pristach, E.A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 635–649.
74. Raab, D.H. (1962). Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24, 574–590.
75. Ramon, M., Busigny, T., & Rossion, B. (2010). Impaired holistic processing of unfamiliar individual faces in acquired prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 48, 933–944.
76. Richler, J.J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of holistic processing. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 1281–1302.
77. Richler, J.J., Gauthier, I., Wenger, M.J., & Palmeri, T.J. (2008). Holistic processing of faces: Perceptual and decisional components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 328–342.
78. Richler, J.J., Palmeri, T.J., & Gauthier, I. (2012). Meaning, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–6.
79. Richler, J.J., Palmeri, T.J., & Gauthier, I. (2013). The effects of varying configuration in the composite task support an attentional account of holistic processing. Visual Cognition, 21, 711–715.
80. Rossion, B. (2013). The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception. Visual Cognition, 21, 139–253.
81. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
82. Schweinberger, S.R., Burton, A.M., & Kelly, S.W. (1999). Asymmetric dependencies in perceiving identity and emotion: Experiments with morphed faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1102–1115.
83. Schweinberger, S.R., & Soukup, G.R. (1998). Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion and facial speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1748–1765.
84. Searcy, J.H., & Bartlett, J.C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 904–915.
85. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation of component and configural processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221–242.
86. Shepard, R.N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 54–87.
87. Susilo, T., Crookes, K., McKone, E., & Turner, H. (2009). The composite task reveals stronger holistic processing in children than adults for child faces. PloS One, 4(7), 1–8.
88. Tanaka, J.W., & Farah, M.J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.
89. Teodorescu, A.R., & Usher, M. (2013). Disentangling decision models: From independence to competition. Psychological Review, 120(1), 1–38.
90. Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483–484.
91. Townsend, J.T. (1971). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 40–50.
92. Townsend, J.T., & Altieri, N. (2012). An accuracy-response time capacity assessment function that measures performance against standard parallel predictions. Psychological Review, 119(3), 500–516.
93. Townsend, J.T., & Ashby, F.G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In J. Castellan, & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory, (Vol. 3. pp. 200–239). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
94. Townsend, J.T., & Ashby, F.G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Townsend, J.T., & Eidels, A. (2011). Workload capacity spaces: A unified methodology for response time measures of efficiency as workload is varied. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 659–681.
96. Townsend, J.T., & Fifić, M. (2004). Parallel versus serial processing and individual differences in high-speed search in human memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(6), 953–962.
97. Townsend, J.T., & Nozawa, G. (1995). On the spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321–359.
98. Townsend, J.T., & Nozawa, G. (1997). Serial exhaustive models can violate the race model inequality: Implications for architecture and capacity. Psychological Review, 104, 595–602.
99. Townsend, J.T., & Wenger, M.J. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111, 1003–1035.
100. Townsend, J.T., & Wenger, M.J. (2014). On the dynamic perceptual characteristics of gestalten: Theory-based methods. In J. Wagemans (Ed.), Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford University Press.
101. Tversky, A., & Krantz, D.H. (1969). Similarity of schematic faces: A test of interdimensional additivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 124–128.
102. Von Der Heide, R., Wenger, M., Bittner, J., & Fitousi, D. (2014). The behavioral neuroscience of perceptual and decisional aspects of performance in the composite face task. Manuscript in preparation.
103. Wang, R., Li, J., Fang, H., Tian, M., & Liu, J. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23, 169–177.
104. Wenger, M.J., & Gibson, B.S. (2004). Using hazard functions to assess changes in processing capacity in an attentional cuing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 708–719.
105. Wenger, M.J., & Ingvalson, E.M. (2002). A decisional component of holistic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, and Cognition, 28, 872–892.
106. Wenger, M.J., & Ingvalson, E.M. (2003). Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1106–1118.
107. Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (2000). Basic response time tools for studying general processing capacity in attention, perception, and cognition. Journal of General Psychology, 127, 67–99.
108. Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (2001a). Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
109. Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (2001b). Faces as gestalt stimuli: Process characteristics. In M. J. Wenger, & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition. (pp. 229–284). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
110. Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (2006). On the costs and benefits of faces and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 755–779.
111. Yankouskaya, A., Booth, D.A., & Humphreys, G. (2012). Interactions between facial emotion and identity in face processing: Evidence based on redundancy gains. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1692–1711.
112. Young, A.W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D.C. (1987). Perception, 16, 747–759.