Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict Face Recognition Ability

Why do some people recognize faces easily and others frequently make mistakes in recognizing faces? Classic behavioral work has shown that faces are processed in a distinctive holistic manner that is unlike the processing of objects. In the study reported here, we investigated whether individual differences in holistic face processing have a significant influence on face recognition. We found that the magnitude of face-specific recognition accuracy correlated with the extent to which participants processed faces holistically, as indexed by the composite-face effect and the whole-part effect. This association is due to face-specific processing in particular, not to a more general aspect of cognitive processing, such as general intelligence or global attention. This finding provides constraints on computational models of face recognition and may elucidate mechanisms underlying cognitive disorders, such as prosopagnosia and autism, that are associated with deficits in face recognition.

[1]  Nikolaus Weiskopf,et al.  Voxel-based morphometry reveals reduced grey matter volume in the temporal cortex of developmental prosopagnosics , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[3]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Detailed Exploration of Face-related Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: 1. Behavioral Findings , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Catherine J. Mondloch,et al.  What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

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

[6]  D. Maurer,et al.  Impairment in Holistic Face Processing Following Early Visual Deprivation , 2004, Psychological science.

[7]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Holistic processing impairment can be restricted to faces in acquired prosopagnosia: evidence from the global/local Navon effect. , 2011, Journal of neuropsychology.

[8]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Prolonged Visual Experience in Adulthood Modulates Holistic Face Perception , 2008, PloS one.

[9]  Jia Liu,et al.  The Part Task of the Part-Spacing Paradigm Is Not a Pure Measurement of Part-Based Information of Faces , 2009, PloS one.

[10]  W. Sommer,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Individual Differences in Perceiving and Recognizing Faces — One Element of Social Cognition , 2010 .

[11]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Congenital prosopagnosia: face-blind from birth , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[13]  Brad Duchaine,et al.  Dissociations of Face and Object Recognition in Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[16]  B. Rossion,et al.  Impaired holistic processing of unfamiliar individual faces in acquired prosopagnosia , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  H. Brownell,et al.  Acquired `theory of mind' impairments following stroke , 1999, Cognition.

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

[19]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Face recognition in young children : When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts , 1998 .

[20]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[21]  L. Mayes,et al.  Neural responses to faces reflect social personality traits , 2010, Social neuroscience.

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

[23]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Developmental Prosopagnosia: a Window to Content-specific Face Processing This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Cognitive Neuroscience Edited Developmental Prosopagnosia and Inferences to Functional Organization Investigating the Architecture of Face Processing through Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2022 .

[24]  Jia Liu,et al.  Perception of Face Parts and Face Configurations: An fMRI Study , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[26]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Lynn C. Robertson,et al.  Functional Plasticity in Ventral Temporal Cortex following Cognitive Rehabilitation of a Congenital Prosopagnosic , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Role of Features and Second-order Spatial Relations in Face Discrimination, Face Recognition, and Individual Face Skills: Behavioral and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Types of deception revealed by individual differences in cognitive abilities , 2009, Social neuroscience.

[30]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  Heritability of the Specific Cognitive Ability of Face Perception , 2010, Current Biology.

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

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

[33]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[36]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Theory Testing and Measurement Error. , 1999 .

[37]  J. Wilmer.  How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis. , 2008, Spatial Vision.

[38]  B. Rossion,et al.  Holistic face processing is mature at 4 years of age: evidence from the composite face effect. , 2007, Journal of experimental child psychology.