Tolerance for distorted faces: Challenges to a configural processing account of familiar face recognition

Face recognition is widely held to rely on 'configural processing', an analysis of spatial relations between facial features. We present three experiments in which viewers were shown distorted faces, and asked to resize these to their correct shape. Based on configural theories appealing to metric distances between features, we reason that this should be an easier task for familiar than unfamiliar faces (whose subtle arrangements of features are unknown). In fact, participants were inaccurate at this task, making between 8% and 13% errors across experiments. Importantly, we observed no advantage for familiar faces: in one experiment participants were more accurate with unfamiliars, and in two experiments there was no difference. These findings were not due to general task difficulty - participants were able to resize blocks of colour to target shapes (squares) more accurately. We also found an advantage of familiarity for resizing other stimuli (brand logos). If configural processing does underlie face recognition, these results place constraints on the definition of 'configural'. Alternatively, familiar face recognition might rely on more complex criteria - based on tolerance to within-person variation rather than highly specific measurement.

[1]  A. M. Burton,et al.  100% Accuracy in Automatic Face Recognition , 2008, Science.

[2]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Interattribute Distances do not Represent the Identity of Real World Faces , 2010, Front. Psychology.

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

[4]  M. Turk,et al.  Eigenfaces for Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  A. Burton,et al.  Variability in photos of the same face , 2011, Cognition.

[6]  S. McKelvie Emotional expression in upside-down faces: evidence for configurational and componential processing. , 1995, The British journal of social psychology.

[7]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Features, Configuration, and Holistic Face Processing , 2011 .

[8]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Low-dimensional representation of faces in higher dimensions of the face space , 1993 .

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

[10]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology When Inverted Faces Are Recognized: the Role of Configural Information in Face Recognition , 2022 .

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

[12]  Lawrence Sirovich,et al.  Application of the Karhunen-Loeve Procedure for the Characterization of Human Faces , 1990, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

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

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

[15]  V. Bruce,et al.  A comparison of two computer-based face identification systems with human perceptions of faces , 1998, Vision Research.

[16]  M. Bindemann,et al.  Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[17]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  G. Yovel,et al.  Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  B. Rossion The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception , 2013 .

[20]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance , 2009, Vision Research.

[21]  G. Rhodes Looking at Faces: First-Order and Second-Order Features as Determinants of Facial Appearance , 1988, Perception.

[22]  G. Hole,et al.  Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance , 2002, Perception.

[23]  R. Johnston,et al.  Matching as an index of face familiarity , 2004 .

[24]  S. Rakover Featural vs. configurational information in faces: a conceptual and empirical analysis. , 2002, British journal of psychology.

[25]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[27]  A. Young,et al.  Configural information in facial expression perception. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Mohamed Rebaï,et al.  The effects of inversion and eye displacements of familiar and unknown faces on early and late-stage ERPs. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

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

[30]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Configural information is processed differently in perception and recognition of faces , 2003, Vision Research.

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

[32]  P. Hancock,et al.  Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.