Decomposing the composite face effect: Evidence for non-holistic processing based on the ex-Gaussian distribution

Composite faces fuse the top and bottom halves from two different faces to create a powerful illusion of a novel face. It has been argued that composite faces are processed holistically, namely that the constituent face parts are perceived as a template, rather than independent features. This study sought to uncover the locus of the composite face effect by relating its empirical reaction time distributions to theoretical ex-Gaussian parameters. The results showed that the composite face effect for unfamiliar (Experiment 1) and familiar (Experiment 2) faces is generated by pure changes in the exponential component of the ex-Gaussian distribution. This held true for both partial and complete design measures. The exponential component has been attributed to working memory and attentional processes. The results suggest the involvement of attentional and working memory processes in the composite face effect and in the perception of faces in general. They cast doubts on the holistic nature of face processing. The results also provide important constraints on future computational theories of the effect.

[1]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[2]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  How holistic processing of faces relates to cognitive control and intelligence , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[3]  R. Melara,et al.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[4]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  Effects of processing bias on the recognition of composite face halves , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Dwight J. Peterson,et al.  The effects of varying configuration in the composite task support an attentional account of holistic processing , 2013 .

[7]  Thomas R. Coyle,et al.  A review of the worst performance rule: Evidence, theory, and alternative hypotheses , 2003 .

[8]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models , 2019, Psychological Research.

[9]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus–response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks , 2006 .

[10]  J. Sergent.  Microgenesis of Face Perception , 1986 .

[11]  Daniel Algom,et al.  Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability-integrality distinction. , 2016, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Why does selective attention to parts fail in face processing? , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[14]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Composite Faces are not (Necessarily) Processed Coactively: A Test Using Systems Factorial Technology and Logical-Rule Models , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Allison B Sekuler,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Not Correlated With Face-Identification Accuracy , 2010, Psychological science.

[16]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[18]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry , 2011 .

[19]  J. Schweitzer,et al.  Intra-Individual Variability Among Children with ADHD on a Working Memory Task: An Ex-Gaussian Approach , 2009, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence.

[20]  Ruosi Wang,et al.  Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict Face Recognition Ability , 2012, Psychological science.

[21]  Jeremy Wilmer,et al.  Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict the Own-Race Advantage in Recognition Memory , 2013, PloS one.

[22]  Viola Macchi Cassia,et al.  Holistic processing for faces and cars in preschool-aged children and adults: evidence from the composite effect. , 2009, Developmental science.

[23]  W. Hockley.  Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes. , 1984 .

[24]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images , 1991 .

[25]  N. Unsworth,et al.  Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model , 2010 .

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

[27]  Rebecca R. Goldstein,et al.  Disrupting perceptual grouping of face parts impairs holistic face processing , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Attention, spatial integration, and the tail of response time distributions in Stroop task performance , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  Gregory Ashby,et al.  Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  G. Hole.  Configurational Factors in the Perception of Unfamiliar Faces , 1994, Perception.

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

[32]  Daniel Fitousi.  Mutual information, perceptual independence, and holistic face perception , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[33]  V Bruce,et al.  Perceiving the sex and race of faces: the role of shape and colour , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  A Heathcote,et al.  Response time distributions and the Stroop Task: a test of the Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) model. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  J. Ridley.  Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[36]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[37]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Retrieval Processes in Recognition Memory , 1976 .

[38]  M. Bindemann,et al.  Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[39]  Mackenzie A. Sunday,et al.  Limited evidence of individual differences in holistic processing in different versions of the part-whole paradigm , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[40]  Daniel Algom,et al.  A system factorial technology analysis of the size congruity effect: Implications for numerical cognition and stochastic modeling , 2018, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[41]  Chi-Shing Tse,et al.  Effects of healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer's type on components of response time distributions in three attention tasks. , 2010, Neuropsychology.

[42]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[44]  Daniel Fitousi.  From Global-to-Local? Uncovering the Temporal Dynamics of the Composite Face Illusion Using Distributional Analyses , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[45]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  C Leth-Steensen,et al.  Mean response times, variability, and skew in the responding of ADHD children: a response time distributional approach. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[47]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  Stable face representations , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  S. Hale,et al.  Global Processing-Time Coefficients Characterize Individual and Group Differences in Cognitive Speed , 1994 .

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

[50]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[52]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity of schematic faces: A test of , 1969 .

[53]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[54]  G. Yovel,et al.  Critical features for face recognition , 2019, Cognition.

[55]  D. Algom,et al.  Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line? , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[56]  D. Rohrer.  On the relative and absolute strength of a memory trace , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[57]  Daniel Fitousi.  Composite faces are not processed holistically: evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[58]  Christopher W. N. Saville,et al.  On the stability of instability: Optimising the reliability of intra-subject variability of reaction times , 2011 .

[59]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Holistic processing of faces: perceptual and decisional components. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  Daniel Fitousi,et al.  Can we perceive two colors at the same time? A direct test of Huang and Pashler’s (2007) Boolean map theory of visual attention , 2019, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[61]  D. Spieler,et al.  Modelling age-related changes in information processing , 2001 .

[62]  Barry Gordon,et al.  The basis for choice reaction time slowing in Alzheimer's disease , 1990, Brain and Cognition.

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

[64]  N. Donnelly,et al.  An examination of the processing capacity of features in the Thatcher illusion , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[65]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Perceptual Expertise as a Shift From Strategic Interference to Automatic Holistic Processing , 2011, Current directions in psychological science.

[66]  T. Zandt,et al.  How to fit a response time distribution , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[67]  G. Rhodes.  Superportraits: Caricatures and Recognition , 1996 .

[68]  R. Hohle.  INFERRED COMPONENTS OF REACTION TIMES AS FUNCTIONS OF FOREPERIOD DURATION. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[69]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[70]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Contour grouping inside and outside of facial contexts. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[71]  B. Tjan,et al.  The Perception of a Face Is No More Than the Sum of Its Parts , 2012, Psychological science.

[72]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[73]  M. Wenger,et al.  Converging operations and the role of perceptual and decisional influences on the perception of faces: Neural and behavioral evidence , 2018, Brain and Cognition.

[74]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing. , 2014, Psychological bulletin.

[75]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Analysis of Response Time Distributions: An Example Using the Stroop Task , 1991 .

[76]  D. Balota,et al.  Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[77]  A. Burton,et al.  Variability in photos of the same face , 2011, Cognition.

[78]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[79]  B. Rossion.  The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception , 2013 .

[80]  H. Leder,et al.  Your eyes only? A test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[81]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? : The importance of variability , 2013 .

[82]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[83]  M. Steinhauser,et al.  Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[84]  Wolf Schwarz,et al.  Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[85]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Finely Tuned for Faces of One's Own Race , 2006, Psychological science.

[86]  C. Jacques,et al.  The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[87]  Daniel Fitousi.  Linking the Ex-Gaussian Parameters to Cognitive Stages: Insights from the Linear Ballistic Accumulator (LBA) Model , 2020 .

[88]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[89]  Alice Towler,et al.  Familiarity and Within-Person Facial Variability: The Importance of the Internal and External Features , 2018, Perception.

[90]  Daniel Fitousi,et al.  Comparing the role of selective and divided attention in the composite face effect: Insights from Attention Operating Characteristic (AOC) plots and cross-contingency correlations , 2016, Cognition.

[91]  G. Loftus,et al.  Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. , 2004, Psychological review.

[92]  David A. Balota,et al.  Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming , 2008 .

[93]  Daniel Fitousi.  On the internal representation of numerical magnitude and physical size. , 2014, Experimental psychology.

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

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

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

[97]  D. Massaro,et al.  Featural evaluation, integration, and judgment of facial affect. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[98]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  Meanings, Mechanisms, and Measures of Holistic Processing , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[99]  Jeremy Wilmer,et al.  Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability , 2013, Cognition.

[100]  Joseph W. Houpt,et al.  CHAPTER 11 Uncovering Mental Architecture and Related Mechanisms in Elementary Human Perception , Cognition , and Action , 2018 .

[101]  D. Balota,et al.  Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[102]  J. Townsend,et al.  Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: an investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories , 1995 .

[103]  R. Luce,et al.  Evidence from auditory simple reaction times for both change and level detectors , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[104]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The Inversion, Part-Whole, and Composite Effects Reflect Distinct Perceptual Mechanisms With Varied Relationships to Face Recognition , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[105]  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.

[106]  I. Rock,et al.  Perceptual organization and attention , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[107]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[108]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Psychological interpretation of the ex-Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: A diffusion model analysis , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[109]  Daniel Fitousi,et al.  Feature binding in visual short term memory: A General Recognition Theory analysis , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

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