Featural and Configurational Processes in the Recognition of Faces of Different Familiarity

Previous research suggests that face recognition may involve both configurational and piecemeal (featural) processing. To explore the relationship between these processing modes, we examined the patterns of recognition impairment produced by blurring, inversion, and scrambling, both singly and in various combinations. Two tasks were used: recognition of unfamiliar faces (seen once before) and recognition of highly familiar faces (celebrities). The results provide further support for a configurational–featural distinction. Recognition performance remained well above chance if faces were blurred, scrambled, inverted, or simultaneously inverted and scrambled: each of these manipulations disrupts either configurational or piecemeal processing, leaving the other mode available as a route to recognition. However, blurred/scrambled and blurred/inverted faces were recognised at or near chance levels, presumably because both configurational processing and featural processing were disrupted. Similar patterns of effects were found for both familiar and unfamiliar faces, suggesting that the relationship between configurational and featural processing is qualitatively similar in both cases.

[1]  R. Yin.  Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[2]  K. F. Scapinello,et al.  The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli , 1970 .

[3]  R. Yin,et al.  Face recognition by brain-injured patients: a dissociable ability? , 1970, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  A. D. Yarmey,et al.  Recognition memory for familiar “public” faces: Effects of orientation and delay , 1971 .

[5]  L. D. Harmon.  The recognition of faces. , 1973, Scientific American.

[6]  Irvin Rock,et al.  Orientation and form , 1974 .

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

[8]  A. Benton,et al.  The neuropsychology of facial recognition. , 1980, The American psychologist.

[9]  H S Levin,et al.  Prosopagnosia: adouble dissociation between the recognition offamiliar andunfamiliar faces , 1982 .

[10]  A. Young,et al.  Right cerebral hemisphere superiority for recognizing the internal and external features of famous faces. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

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

[12]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[13]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986 .

[14]  V. Bruce.  Influences of Familiarity on the Processing of Faces , 1986, Perception.

[15]  M. Endo.  Perception of Upside-Down Faces: An Analysis from the Viewpoint of Cue Saliency , 1986 .

[16]  J. Sergent.  Microgenesis of Face Perception , 1986 .

[17]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  A. Young,et al.  Configurational Information in Face Perception , 1987, Perception.

[19]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Features of laterally displayed faces: saliency or top-down processing? , 1987, Acta psychologica.

[20]  A Hayes,et al.  Identification of Two-Tone Images; Some Implications for High- and Low-Spatial-Frequency Processes in Human Vision , 1988, Perception.

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

[22]  C. McManus,et al.  Sensitivity to the Displacement of Facial Features in Negative and Inverted Images , 1990, Perception.

[23]  V. Bruce,et al.  Remembering facial configurations , 1991, Cognition.

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

[25]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and Configuration of Faces , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[27]  R. Ulrich,et al.  Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[29]  I. Craw,et al.  Spatial Content and Spatial Quantisation Effects in Face Recognition , 1994, Perception.

[30]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  FACIAL ORGANIZATION BLOCKS ACCESS TO LOW-LEVEL FEATURES: AN OBJECT INFERIORITY EFFECT , 1995 .

[31]  R. Johnston,et al.  Incomplete Faces Don't Show the Whole Picture: Repetition Priming from Jumbled Faces , 1996 .

[32]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Jeff Miller.  The sampling distribution ofd′ , 1996 .

[34]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  The Thatcher Illusion as a Test of Configural Disruption , 1997, Perception.

[35]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[36]  J T Enns,et al.  Separate influences of orientation and lighting in the inverted-face effect , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  A. Young,et al.  In the Eye of the Beholder: The Science of Face Perception , 1998 .

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

[39]  Philip J. Benson,et al.  When does the inner-face advantage in familiar face recognition arise and why? , 1999 .

[40]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  In the eye of the beholder , 2000, Nature.