The influence of divided attention on holistic face perception

There is evidence that upright, but not inverted, faces are encoded holistically. The holistic coding of faces was examined in four experiments by manipulating the attention allocated to target faces. In Experiment 1, participants in a divided attention condition were asked to match two upright flanker faces while encoding a centrally presented upright target face. Although holistic coding was evident in the full attention conditions, dividing attention disrupted holistic coding of target faces. In Experiment 2, we found that while matching upright flanker faces disrupted holistic coding, matching inverted flanker faces did not. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the differential effects of flanker orientation were not due to participants taking longer to match upright, than inverted, flanker faces. In Experiment 4, we found that matching fractured faces had an intermediate effect to that of matching upright and inverted flankers, on the holistic coding of the target faces. The findings emphasize the differences in processing of upright, fractured and inverted faces and suggest that there are limitations in the number of faces that can be holistically coded in a brief time.

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

[2]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[6]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[7]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Face recognition in young children : When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts , 1998 .

[8]  N. Kanwisher Domain specificity in face perception , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

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

[11]  I. Nachson On the modularity of face recognition: the riddle of domain specificity. , 1995, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[12]  M. Farah,et al.  The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms , 1995, Vision Research.

[13]  D. Navon,et al.  Illusory Conjunctions: Does Inattention Really Matter? , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  R. Ivry,et al.  Loosening the constraints on illusory conjunctions: assessing the roles of exposure duration and attention. , 1995 .

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

[16]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect , 1995 .

[17]  G. Hole,et al.  Evidence for Holistic Processing of Faces Viewed as Photographic Negatives , 1999, Perception.

[18]  M. Tarr,et al.  FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  V. Bruce,et al.  Visual Cognition: Computational, Experimental, and Neuropsychological Perspectives , 1989 .

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

[21]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Visual neurones responsive to faces , 1987, Trends in Neurosciences.

[22]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology , 1984 .

[23]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  T. Allison,et al.  Differential Sensitivity of Human Visual Cortex to Faces, Letterstrings, and Textures: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial–relational information in faces. , 1996 .

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

[28]  J. B. Demb,et al.  Role of attention in face encoding , 1994 .

[29]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision , 2000 .

[30]  B. Khurana,et al.  Not to be and then to be: visual representation of ignored unfamiliar faces. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  A. Young,et al.  Face-name interference. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  R. Desimone Face-Selective Cells in the Temporal Cortex of Monkeys , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  D. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect: Configuration enhances detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  C. Umilta Domain-specific forms of neglect. , 1995, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[36]  W. Banks,et al.  Figural goodness effects in perception and memory , 1979 .

[37]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus: fMRI study. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[39]  D. Perrett,et al.  Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[40]  G. Hole,et al.  The Influence of Feature-Based Information in the Age Processing of Unfamiliar Faces , 1998, Perception.

[41]  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.

[42]  V. Bruce,et al.  Mental rotation of faces , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[43]  M Moscovitch,et al.  SUPER FACE-INVERSION EFFECTS FOR ISOLATED INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL FEATURES, AND FOR FRACTURED FACES , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[44]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[45]  B. Dosher,et al.  Mechanisms of perceptual learning , 1999, Vision Research.

[46]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Expertise in object and face recognition , 1997 .

[47]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory words: the roles of attention and of top-down constraints in conjoining letters to form words. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The Effect of Face Inversion on Activity in Human Neural Systems for Face and Object Perception , 1999, Neuron.

[50]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[51]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[53]  H. Pashler The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[54]  H. Ellis,et al.  Perceiving and remembering faces , 1983 .

[55]  A. Chaudhuri,et al.  Multistability of Overlapped Face Stimuli is Dependent upon Orientation , 2001, Perception.