Are faces processed like words? A diagnostic test for recognition by parts.

Do we identify an object as a whole or by its parts? This simple question has been surprisingly hard to answer. It has been suggested that faces are recognized as wholes and words are recognized by parts. Here we answer the question by applying a test for crowding. In crowding, a target is harder to identify in the presence of nearby flankers. Previous work has described crowding between objects. We show that crowding also occurs between the parts of an object. Such internal crowding severely impairs perception, identification, and fMRI face-area activation. We apply a diagnostic test for crowding to a word and a face, and we find that the critical spacing of the parts required for recognition is proportional to distance from fixation and independent of size and kind. The critical spacing defines an isolation field around the target. Some objects can be recognized only when each part is isolated from the rest of the object by the critical spacing. In that case, recognition is by parts. Recognition is holistic if the observer can recognize the object even when the whole object fits within a critical spacing. Such an object has only one part. Multiple parts within an isolation field will crowd each other and spoil recognition. To assess the robustness of the crowding test, we manipulated familiarity through inversion and the face- and word-superiority effects. We find that threshold contrast for word and face identification is the product of two factors: familiarity and crowding. Familiarity increases sensitivity by a factor of x1.5, independent of eccentricity, while crowding attenuates sensitivity more and more as eccentricity increases. Our findings show that observers process words and faces in much the same way: The effects of familiarity and crowding do not distinguish between them. Words and faces are both recognized by parts, and their parts -- letters and facial features -- are recognized holistically. We propose that internal crowding be taken as the signature of recognition by parts.

[1]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[2]  Katharine Tillman,et al.  Crowding, shuffling, and capitalizing reveal three processes in reading , 2005 .

[3]  D. Pelli,et al.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[4]  E. M. Fine The relative benefit of word context is a constant proportion of letter identification time , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  P. Bennett,et al.  Inversion Leads to Quantitative, Not Qualitative, Changes in Face Processing , 2004, Current Biology.

[6]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition , 2003, Nature.

[7]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Object substitution without reentry , 2002 .

[8]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  A decisional component of holistic encoding. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  R. Malach,et al.  The topography of high-order human object areas , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  S. Rakover Featural vs. configurational information in faces: a conceptual and empirical analysis. , 2002, British journal of psychology.

[11]  H Strasburger,et al.  Invariance of the psychometric function for character recognition across the visual field , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Spatial Resolution of Visual Attention , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Human Body , 2001 .

[14]  J. Lund,et al.  Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Talma Hendler,et al.  Center–periphery organization of human object areas , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition , 2001, Vision Research.

[18]  Jyrki Rovamo,et al.  Identification of facial images in peripheral vision , 2001, Vision Research.

[19]  D. Pelli,et al.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking : Distinguishing feature detection and integration , 2001 .

[20]  D. Hay,et al.  Developmental changes in the recognition of faces and facial features. , 2000 .

[21]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology When Inverted Faces Are Recognized: the Role of Configural Information in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[22]  Robert F Hess,et al.  The foveal ‘crowding’ effect: physics or physiology? , 2000, Vision Research.

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

[24]  M. Tarr,et al.  Can Face Recognition Really be Dissociated from Object Recognition? , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  M. Tarr,et al.  Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  D G Pelli,et al.  Why use noise? , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[27]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Brain Imaging , 2020, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine.

[28]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  An Area within Human Ventral Cortex Sensitive to “Building” Stimuli Evidence and Implications , 1998, Neuron.

[29]  Philippe G Schyns,et al.  Diagnostic recognition: task constraints, object information, and their interactions , 1998, Cognition.

[30]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine , 1998, Cognition.

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

[32]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a Understanding Caricatures of Faces , 2022 .

[33]  T A Polk,et al.  The neural development and organization of letter recognition: evidence from functional neuroimaging, computational modeling, and behavioral studies. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[35]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[38]  H. Babkoff,et al.  Lexical decision, visual hemifield and angle of orientation , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[39]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Facial Distinctiveness and the Power of Caricatures , 1997, Perception.

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

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

[42]  D Whitaker,et al.  Relative roles of resolution and spatial interference in foveal and peripheral vision. , 1996, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

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

[44]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  Visual Feature Integration in a World of Objects , 1995 .

[45]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition , 1995 .

[46]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  P. King-Smith,et al.  Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation , 1994, Vision Research.

[48]  Nk Logothetis,et al.  Image-based Object Recognition. , 1994 .

[49]  Timothy R. Jordan,et al.  Word Superiority Over Isolated Letters: The Neglected Role of Flanking Mask Contours , 1993 .

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

[51]  David J. Field,et al.  Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local “association field” , 1993, Vision Research.

[52]  D. Levi,et al.  The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea , 1992, Vision Research.

[53]  P. Ekman Are there basic emotions? , 1992, Psychological review.

[54]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays , 1991, Vision Research.

[55]  I. Rentschler,et al.  Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline , 1991, Cognition.

[57]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Cognitive Neuropsychology: Patterns of Co-occurrence Among the Associative Agnosias: Implications for Visual Object Representation , 1991 .

[58]  M. Farah Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us about Normal Vision , 1990 .

[59]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

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

[61]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[62]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[63]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[64]  S. Klein,et al.  Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification , 1985, Vision Research.

[65]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

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

[67]  B. Tversky,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General VOL . 113 , No . 2 JUNE 1984 Objects , Parts , and Categories , 2005 .

[68]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[69]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[70]  R W Schvaneveldt,et al.  An activation--verification model for letter and word recognition: the word-superiority effect. , 1982, Psychological review.

[71]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[72]  Jacob Nachmias,et al.  On the psychometric function for contrast detection , 1981, Vision Research.

[73]  J. Robson,et al.  Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field , 1981, Vision Research.

[74]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification , 1980 .

[75]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[76]  S. Carey,et al.  Developmental changes in the representation of faces. , 1977, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[77]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[78]  C. C. Goren,et al.  Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. , 1975, Pediatrics.

[79]  N Weisstein,et al.  Visual Detection of Line Segments: An Object-Superiority Effect , 1974, Science.

[80]  H. Bouma Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[81]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[82]  D. D. Wheeler Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[83]  G. M. Reicher Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[85]  F. Smith,et al.  Familiarity of configuration vs discriminability of features in the visual identification of words , 1969 .

[86]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[87]  E. Smith Effects of familiarity on stimulus recognition and categorization. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[88]  W. D. Ellis A Source Book Of Gestalt Psychology , 1939 .

[89]  M. Wertheimer Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .