Preferential Inspection of Views of 3-D Model Heads

The importance of different perspective views for the recognition of model heads was studied. In experiment 1 subjects were instructed to learn the appearance of six heads placed individually on a turntable free to rotate through 360°. Subjects did not distribute their time evenly but focussed their inspection on particular views (the full face view and a view close to the profile). Despite differential inspection of these two views during the learning phase, the face, half profile, and profile views were recognized with equal efficiency in a subsequent recognition task with static views. Experiment 2 used the inspection paradigm to investigate view preference during the recognition of heads from memory. In this experiment subjects were asked to learn the appearance of three heads each seen rotating at an even speed. In a subsequent retrieval task the subjects actively inspected six model heads on the turntable and were asked to differentiate the three heads previously seen rotating from three novel heads. The pattern of inspection in this retrieval task was equivalent to that in experiment 1. Results suggest that during the encoding into memory subjects construct descriptions of specific prototypical views of the head and that descriptions of these same views are preferentially utilised during recognition.

[1]  T. Howells.  A study of ability to recognize faces. , 1938 .

[2]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Recognition of human faces from isolated facial features: A developmental study , 1966 .

[3]  K. Laughery,et al.  Recognition of human faces: effects of target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph. , 1971, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  P Bakan,et al.  Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. , 1973, Neuropsychologia.

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

[6]  E. Warrington,et al.  Prosopagnosia: a clinical, psychological, and anatomical study of three patients. , 1977, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  H. Ellis,et al.  Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation. , 1978 .

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

[9]  D. Pandya,et al.  Afferent cortical connections and architectonics of the superior temporal sulcus and surrounding cortex in the rhesus monkey , 1978, Brain Research.

[10]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  On Training People to Recognize Faces , 1979 .

[11]  H. Ellis,et al.  Identification of Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces from Internal and External Features: Some Implications for Theories of Face Recognition , 1979, Perception.

[12]  Frances L. Krouse.  Effects of pose, pose change, and delay on face recognition performance. , 1981 .

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

[14]  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.

[15]  N. Haig.  Exploring Recognition with Interchanged Facial Features , 1986, Perception.

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

[17]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Face recognition, pose and ecological validity. , 1987 .

[18]  D I Perrett,et al.  Characteristic Views and the Visual Inspection of Simple Faceted and Smooth Objects: ‘Tetrahedra and Potatoes’ , 1988, Perception.