An attractor field model of face representation: Effects of typicality and image morphing

A morphed face image at the midpoint between a typical face and an atypical face tends to be perceived as more similar to the atypical parent than the typical parent [Tanaka et al., 1998]. One account of this atypicality bias in face perception is provided by the hypothesis that face representations are characterized as basins of attraction in face space. According to this hypothesis, atypical faces should have larger basins of attraction than typical faces since they are farther from the origin of face space where the density of faces is much lower. This hypothesis is tested on a set of graylevel face images, and normalized Gabor representations of the faces. We first examine some of the assumptions about face space made by the attractor field hypothesis, and demonstrate that typical faces are indeed closer to the origin of face space than atypical faces, and the density of faces is greater near typical faces than atypical faces, for the normalized Gabor representations. We next show that a face model based on principal component analysis, which has accounted for other face perception phenomena such as ”other race” effects, does not account for the atypicality bias. Finally, an attractor network model of face representations is implemented, and the basins of attraction are examined by presenting morphed faces to the network. The model exhibits an atypicality bias when presented with morphed test patterns, and upholds the prediction that ”atypical” patterns have larger basins of attraction than ”typical” patterns stored in an attractor network.

[1]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[2]  D. O. Hebb,et al.  The organization of behavior , 1988 .

[3]  T J Sejnowski,et al.  Learning viewpoint-invariant face representations from visual experience in an attractor network. , 1998, Network.

[4]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Typicality in categorization, recognition and identification: Evidence from face recognition , 1991 .

[5]  D. Heeger.  Nonlinear model of neural responses in cat visual cortex. , 1991 .

[6]  M. Bruck,et al.  Fortysomething: Recognizing faces at one’s 25th reunion , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[7]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  Walter J. Freeman,et al.  The Hebbian paradigm reintegrated: Local reverberations as internal representations , 1995, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  P. Kuhl.  Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  K. Miller,et al.  Ocular dominance column development: analysis and simulation. , 1989, Science.

[11]  P. Ekman.  Emotion in the human face , 1982 .

[12]  J. Hopfield,et al.  Computing with neural circuits: a model. , 1986, Science.

[13]  George Wolberg,et al.  Digital image warping , 1990 .

[14]  A. J. O'toole,et al.  Classifying faces by face and sex using an autoassociative memory trained for recognition , 1991 .

[15]  P. Schyns,et al.  Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition , 1997, Cognition.

[16]  James Tanaka,et al.  Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition , 1998, Cognition.

[17]  John Daugman,et al.  Neural networks for image transformation, analysis, and compression , 1988, Neural Networks.

[18]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Distortion Invariant Object Recognition in the Dynamic Link Architecture , 1993, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[19]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Neural Networks, Principal Components, and Subspaces , 1989, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[20]  R. Linsker.  From basic network principles to neural architecture (series) , 1986 .

[21]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Typicality and familiarity of faces , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[22]  T Valentine,et al.  The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[23]  B. McNaughton,et al.  Synaptic enhancement in fascia dentata: Cooperativity among coactive afferents , 1978, Brain Research.

[24]  T. Bliss,et al.  Long‐lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path , 1973, The Journal of physiology.

[25]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[26]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Connectionist models of face processing: A survey , 1994, Pattern Recognit..

[27]  F. Keil,et al.  Categorical effects in the perception of faces , 1995, Cognition.