Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition

Are faces recognized using more holistic representations than other types of stimuli? Taking holistic representation to mean representation without an internal part structure, we interpret the available evidence on this issue and then design new empirical tests. Based on previous research, we reasoned that if a portion of an object corresponds to an explicitly represented part in a hierarchical visual representation, then when that portion is presented in isolation it will be identified relatively more easily than if it did not have the status of an explicitly represented part. The hypothesis that face recognition is holistic therefore predicts that a part of a face will be disproportionately more easily recognized in the whole face than as an isolated part, relative to recognition of the parts and wholes of other kinds of stimuli. This prediction was borne out in three experiments: subjects were more accurate at identifying the parts of faces, presented in the whole object, than they were at identifying the same part presented in isolation, even though both parts and wholes were tested in a forced-choice format and the whole faces differed only by one part. In contrast, three other types of stimuli–-scrambled faces, inverted faces, and houses–-did not show this advantage for part identification in whole object recognition.

[1]  F. Galton Composite Portraits, Made by Combining Those of Many Different Persons Into a Single Resultant Figure. , 1879 .

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

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

[4]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Representations and retrieval processes in short-term memory: Recognition and recall of faces , 1970 .

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

[6]  K. F. Scapinello,et al.  The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli , 1970 .

[7]  A. D. Yarmey,et al.  Recognition memory for familiar “public” faces: Effects of orientation and delay , 1971 .

[8]  John L. Bradshaw,et al.  Models for the processing and identification of faces , 1971 .

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

[10]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Structural descriptions and the limitations of visual images* , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[11]  H. Ellis Recognizing faces. , 1975, British journal of psychology.

[12]  D. Homa,et al.  Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[13]  G. Bower,et al.  Structural units and the redintegrative power of picture fragments. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[14]  S. Carey,et al.  From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. , 1977, Science.

[15]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  M. Matthews,et al.  Discrimination of Identikit constructions of faces: Evidence for a dual processing strategy , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  G. J. Walker-Smith,et al.  The effects of delay and exposure duration in a face recognition task , 1978 .

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

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

[20]  R. Desimone,et al.  Stimulus-selective properties of inferior temporal neurons in the macaque , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[21]  J. Sergent An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

[22]  E. Rolls,et al.  Selectivity between faces in the responses of a population of neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey , 1985, Brain Research.

[23]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[24]  T Valentine,et al.  The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

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

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

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

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

[29]  J. Enns,et al.  Three-dimensionality and discriminability in the object-superiority effect , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  N D Haig,et al.  The Effect of Feature Displacement on the Perception of Well-Known Faces , 1988, Perception.

[31]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Object superiority: a comparison of complete and part probes. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

[32]  V. Bruce,et al.  Remembering facial configurations , 1991, Cognition.

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

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

[35]  Martha J. Farah Pure alexia as a visual impairment: A reconsideration , 1995 .