Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search.

We report evidence from visual search that people can develop robust representations for highly overlearned faces. When observers searched for their own face versus the face of an unfamiliar observer, search slopes and intercepts revealed consistently faster processing of self than stranger. These processing advantages persisted even after hundreds of presentations of the unfamiliar face and even for atypical profile and upside-down views. Observers not only showed rapid asymptotic recognition of their own face as the target, but could reject their own face more quickly as the distractor. These findings suggest that robust representations for a highly overlearned face may (a) mediate rapid asymptotic visual processing, (b) require extensive experience to develop, (c) contain abstract or view-invariant information, (d) facilitate a variety of processes such as target recognition and distractor rejection, and (e) demand less attentional resources.

[1]  W. R. Garner.  Applications of Information Theory to Psychology , 1959 .

[2]  O. L. Zangwill,et al.  Current problems in animal behaviour , 1962 .

[3]  D. Hubel,et al.  Binocular interaction in striate cortex of kittens reared with artificial squint. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  C. Blakemore,et al.  The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination , 1967, The Journal of physiology.

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

[6]  G. F. Cooper,et al.  Development of the Brain depends on the Visual Environment , 1970, Nature.

[7]  O Braddick,et al.  Orientation-Specific Learning in Stereopsis , 1973, Perception.

[8]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[10]  A. Fiorentini,et al.  Perceptual learning specific for orientation and spatial frequency , 1980, Nature.

[11]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  A. Young,et al.  Matching Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces on Internal and External Features , 1985, Perception.

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

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

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

[16]  L Sirovich,et al.  Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  V. Bruce,et al.  The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition , 1987 .

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

[19]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[21]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[22]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  On the perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

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

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

[25]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Age decisions on familiar and unfamiliar faces , 1991, Behavioural Processes.

[26]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surfaces versus features in visual search , 1992, Nature.

[27]  Ken A Paller,et al.  Priming of face matching in amnesia , 1992, Brain and Cognition.

[28]  M. Young,et al.  Sparse population coding of faces in the inferotemporal cortex. , 1992, Science.

[29]  S. Edelman,et al.  Long-term learning in vernier acuity: Effects of stimulus orientation, range and of feedback , 1993, Vision Research.

[30]  H. Nothdurft.  Faces and Facial Expressions do not Pop Out , 1993, Perception.

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

[32]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Impact of Quality of the Image, Orientation, and Similarity of the Stimuli on Visual Search for Faces , 1994, Perception.

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

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

[36]  M. V. von Grünau,et al.  The Detection of Gaze Direction: A Stare-In-The-Crowd Effect , 1995, Perception.

[37]  S. Ullman,et al.  Generalization to Novel Images in Upright and Inverted Faces , 1993, Perception.

[38]  D. Levin.  CLASSIFYING FACES BY RACE : THE STRUCTURE OF FACE CATEGORIES , 1996 .

[39]  Penio S. Penev,et al.  Local feature analysis: A general statistical theory for object representation , 1996 .

[40]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Learning Pop-out Detection: Specificities to Stimulus Characteristics , 1996, Vision Research.

[41]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  Paul A. Griffin,et al.  Statistical Approach to Shape from Shading: Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Face Surfaces from Single Two-Dimensional Images , 1996, Neural Computation.

[43]  D. Purcell,et al.  It Takes a Confounded Face to Pop Out of a Crowd , 1996, Perception.

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

[45]  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.

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

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

[48]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area , 1998, Cognition.

[49]  K. Nakayama,et al.  RESPONSE PROPERTIES OF THE HUMAN FUSIFORM FACE AREA , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.