The perception of a familiar face is no more than the sum of its parts

Why do faces become easier to recognize with repeated exposure? Previous research has suggested that familiarity may induce a qualitative shift in visual processing from an independent analysis of individual facial features to analysis that includes information about the relationships among features (Farah, Wilson, Drain, & Tanaka Psychological Review, 105, 482–498, 1998; Maurer, Grand, & Mondloch Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 255–260, 2002). We tested this idea by using a “summation-at-threshold” technique (Gold, Mundy, & Tjan Psychological Science, 23, 427–434, 2012; Nandy & Tjan Journal of Vision, 8, 3.1–20, 2008), in which an observer’s ability to recognize each individual facial feature shown independently is used to predict their ability to recognize all of the features shown in combination. We find that, although people are better overall at recognizing familiar as opposed to unfamiliar faces, their ability to integrate information across features is similar for unfamiliar and highly familiar faces and is well predicted by their ability to recognize each of the facial features shown in isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that familiarity has a quantitative effect on the efficiency with which information is extracted from individual features, rather than a qualitative effect on the process by which features are combined.

[1]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Holistic processing of faces: perceptual and decisional components. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Sarah E. MacPherson,et al.  Familiar Other-Race Faces Show Normal Holistic Processing and are Robust to Perceptual Stress , 2007, Perception.

[4]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[6]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. , 2007, British journal of psychology.

[7]  Jason M. Gold,et al.  Characterizing perceptual learning with external noise , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Allison B. Sekuler,et al.  Perceptual learning modifies inversion effects for faces and textures , 2009, Vision Research.

[9]  Frédéric Gosselin,et al.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of face recognition in a flash: it's in the eyes , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  Allison B Sekuler,et al.  Superior Identification of Familiar Visual Patterns a Year After Learning , 2011, Psychological science.

[12]  M. Farah,et al.  What is "special" about face perception? , 1998, Psychological review.

[13]  A. Norcia,et al.  An objective signature for visual binding of face parts in the human brain. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[14]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. , 1989, British journal of psychology.

[15]  G. Winocur,et al.  What Is Special about Face Recognition? Nineteen Experiments on a Person with Visual Object Agnosia and Dyslexia but Normal Face Recognition , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Christian Wallraven,et al.  Two Routes to Face Perception: Evidence From Psychophysics and Computational Modeling , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Bosco S. Tjan,et al.  Efficient integration across spatial frequencies for letter identification in foveal and peripheral vision. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[18]  J. Sergent.  An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

[19]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Vision: Coding and Efficiency , 1991 .

[20]  J Sergent,et al.  Configural processing of faces in the left and the right cerebral hemispheres. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  G. Hole.  Configurational Factors in the Perception of Unfamiliar Faces , 1994, Perception.

[22]  D. Maurer,et al.  The effect of spatial frequency on perceptual learning of inverted faces , 2013, Vision Research.

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context , 1997, Nature.

[24]  Wendy L. Braje,et al.  Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise , 1995, Vision Research.

[25]  K. Purpura,et al.  Response variability in retinal ganglion cells of primates. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Barbara A Dosher,et al.  Perceptual learning retunes the perceptual template in foveal orientation identification. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[27]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Adaptation as a tool for probing the neural correlates of conscious visual awareness , 2004 .

[28]  Fred W Mast,et al.  Perception of Novel Faces: The Parts Have it! , 2007, Perception.

[29]  A. B. Sekuler,et al.  Signal but not noise changes with perceptual learning , 1999, Nature.

[30]  Andrew J. Edmonds,et al.  Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review , 2009, Memory.

[31]  Michael Diaz,et al.  Signal detection with criterion noise: applications to recognition memory. , 2009, Psychological review.

[32]  D. Pelli.  The quantum efficiency of vision , 1990 .

[33]  F. Fang,et al.  Learning to discriminate face views. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  P. Bennett,et al.  Inversion Leads to Quantitative, Not Qualitative, Changes in Face Processing , 2004, Current Biology.

[35]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  Markus Kiefer,et al.  A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: evidence from a cross-cultural study , 2004, Cognition.

[37]  B. Tjan,et al.  The Perception of a Face Is No More Than the Sum of Its Parts , 2012, Psychological science.

[38]  T. Valentine.  Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[39]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[41]  Sam S. Rakover,et al.  Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.

[43]  P. Bennett,et al.  Identification of band-pass filtered letters and faces by human and ideal observers , 1999, Vision Research.

[44]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[45]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological Studies of Face Perception in Humans , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[46]  P. Schyns,et al.  Show Me the Features! Understanding Recognition From the Use of Visual Information , 2002, Psychological science.

[47]  H. Ellis,et al.  Identification of Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces from Internal and External Features: Some Implications for Theories of Face Recognition , 1979, Perception.

[48]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  A decisional component of holistic encoding. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Jason M. Gold,et al.  The response of face-selective cortex with single face parts and part combinations , 2012, Neuropsychologia.