Learning influences the encoding of static and dynamic faces and their recognition across different spatial frequencies

Studies on face recognition have shown that observers are faster and more accurate at recognizing faces learned from dynamic sequences than those learned from static snapshots. Here, we investigated whether different learning procedures mediate the advantage for dynamic faces across different spatial frequencies. Observers learned two faces—one dynamic and one static—either in depth (Experiment 1) or using a more superficial learning procedure (Experiment 2). They had to search for the target faces in a subsequent visual search task. We used high-spatial frequency (HSF) and low-spatial frequency (LSF) filtered static faces during visual search to investigate whether the behavioural difference is based on encoding of different visual information for dynamically and statically learned faces. Such encoding differences may mediate the recognition of target faces in different spatial frequencies, as HSF may mediate featural face processing whereas LSF mediates configural processing. Our results show that the nature of the learning procedure alters how observers encode dynamic and static faces, and how they recognize those learned faces across different spatial frequencies. That is, these results point to a flexible usage of spatial frequencies tuned to the recognition task.

[1]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  The role of motion in learning new faces , 2003 .

[2]  K. Lander,et al.  Why are moving faces easier to recognize? , 2005, Visual Cognition.

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

[4]  I. Craw,et al.  Effects of high-pass and low-pass spatial filtering on face identification , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[7]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[8]  M C Morrone,et al.  Recognition of Positive and Negative Bandpass-Filtered Images , 1986, Perception.

[9]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Faces are "spatial"--holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[11]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Effects of temporal association on recognition memory , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  G. Pike,et al.  Recognizing moving faces: The relative contribution of motion and perspective view information. , 1997 .

[13]  A. Johnston,et al.  The Role of Movement in Face Recognition , 1997 .

[14]  J R Lishman,et al.  Evidence for the View That Temporospatial Integration in Vision is Temporally Anisotropic , 1997, Perception.

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

[16]  R. Näsänen Spatial frequency bandwidth used in the recognition of facial images , 1999, Vision Research.

[17]  Carole Peyrin,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for spatial frequency processing in the analysis of natural scenes , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[18]  V. Bruce,et al.  The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  Simple reaction time as a measure of the temporal response properties of transient and sustained channels , 1975, Vision Research.

[20]  J R Lishman,et al.  Temporal Integration of Spatially Filtered Visual Images , 1992, Perception.

[21]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  A search advantage for faces learned in motion , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  A. Oliva,et al.  Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: when categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations , 1999, Cognition.

[23]  A. Johnston,et al.  Categorizing sex and identity from the biological motion of faces , 2001, Current Biology.

[24]  G. Bower,et al.  Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory , 1974 .

[25]  Leo Ganz,et al.  Recognition of faces in the presence of two-dimensional sinusoidal masks , 1977 .

[26]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Recognizing Famous Faces: Exploring the Benefits of Facial Motion , 2000 .

[27]  Paul T. Sowden,et al.  Channel surfing in the visual brain , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Role of Featural and Configural Information in Familiar and Unfamiliar Face Recognition , 2002, Biologically Motivated Computer Vision.

[29]  Q. Vuong,et al.  The Respective Role of Low and High Spatial Frequencies in Supporting Configural and Featural Processing of Faces , 2005, Perception.

[30]  Z. Kourtzi,et al.  A Matching Advantage for Dynamic Human Faces , 2002, Perception.

[31]  P. Schyns,et al.  Usage of spatial scales for the categorization of faces, objects, and scenes , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  A. Oliva,et al.  From Blobs to Boundary Edges: Evidence for Time- and Spatial-Scale-Dependent Scene Recognition , 1994 .

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

[34]  Gordon L. Shulman,et al.  Reaction times to different spatial frequencies as a function of detectability , 1986, Vision Research.

[35]  Arthur P Ginsburg,et al.  Visual Information Processing Based on Spatial Filters Constrained by Biological Data. , 1978 .

[36]  J. N. Bassili Facial motion in the perception of faces and of emotional expression. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[38]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Modern Theories of Gestalt Perception , 1990 .

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

[40]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[41]  A. Oliva,et al.  Coarse Blobs or Fine Edges? Evidence That Information Diagnosticity Changes the Perception of Complex Visual Stimuli , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.