Optimal face recognition performance involves a balance between global and local information processing: Evidence from cultural difference

In face recognition, eye gaze to the eye region is reported to be associated with better performance than to the center of a face. Nevertheless, Caucasians and Asians differ in how much they look at the eyes when they scan a face, but have comparable identification performance. To resolve this issue, here we test the hypothesis that optimal face recognition performance involves a balance between global and local face processing. Thus, Asians may benefit from enhancement of local processing and vice versa for Caucasians. We showed that local attention priming using hierarchical letter stimuli led to more eye-focused eye movement patterns compared to global attention priming in both Asians and Caucasians. However, Asians had better performance after local priming than global priming, whereas Caucasian showed the opposite effect. These results suggest that engagement of global/local attention leads to face-center/eye biased eye movements respectively, and optimal recognition performance involves both global and local processing/gaze transitions between the face center and eyes.

[1]  Tim Chuk,et al.  Hidden Markov model analysis reveals the advantage of analytic eye movement patterns in face recognition across cultures , 2017, Cognition.

[2]  Elizabeth A. Nelson,et al.  Modulations of eye movement patterns by spatial filtering during the learning and testing phases of an old/new face recognition task , 2014, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[3]  L M Ward,et al.  Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Antoni B. Chan,et al.  Eye-movement patterns in face recognition are associated with cognitive decline in older adults , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Culture and the Physical Environment , 2006, Psychological science.

[6]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[7]  Matthew F. Peterson,et al.  Individual Differences in Eye Movements During Face Identification Reflect Observer-Specific Optimal Points of Fixation , 2013, Psychological science.

[8]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Holistic Processing Predicts Face Recognition , 2011, Psychological science.

[9]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Holistic processing in the composite task depends on face size , 2015, Visual cognition.

[10]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. , 2001, Psychological review.

[11]  Ronald Hübner.  Attention shifting between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects , 2000 .

[12]  R. Caldara,et al.  Putting Culture Under the ‘Spotlight’ Reveals Universal Information Use for Face Recognition , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  Antoni B. Chan,et al.  Analytic Eye Movement Patterns in Face Recognition are Associated with Better Performance and more Top-down Control of Visual Attention: an fMRI Study , 2016, CogSci.

[14]  Rachael E. Jack,et al.  Culture Shapes How We Look at Faces , 2008, PloS one.

[15]  Roberto Cabeza,et al.  Features are Also Important: Contributions of Featural and Configural Processing to Face Recognition , 2000, Psychological science.

[16]  R. Caldara,et al.  When East meets West: gaze-contingent Blindspots abolish cultural diversity in eye movements for faces , 2010 .

[17]  J. Shedden,et al.  Attention switching between global and local elements: Distractor category and the level repetition effect , 2003 .

[18]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  E. McKone,et al.  Holistic processing for faces operates over a wide range of sizes but is strongest at identification rather than conversational distances , 2009, Vision Research.

[20]  Tim Chuk,et al.  Understanding eye movements in face recognition using hidden Markov models. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[21]  Howard Riley,et al.  Are Portrait Artists Superior Face Recognizers? Limited Impact of Adult Experience on Face Recognition Ability , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Keiko Ishii,et al.  When Does the Culturally Dominant Mode of Attention Appear or Disappear? Comparing Patterns of Eye Movement During the Visual Flicker Task Between European Canadians and Japanese , 2016 .

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

[24]  P. Schyns,et al.  Local Jekyll and Global Hyde : The Dual Identity of Face Identification , 2011 .

[25]  Mary-Ellen Large,et al.  Hierarchical attention in discriminating objects at different levels of specificity , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  R. Caldara,et al.  Culture Shapes Eye Movements for Visually Homogeneous Objects , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[27]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.10 October 2005 The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception , 2022 .

[28]  Tim Chuk,et al.  Is having similar eye movement patterns during face learning and recognition beneficial for recognition performance? Evidence from hidden Markov modeling , 2017, Vision Research.

[29]  F. Galton.  Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development , 1883 .