Search

Face identification is reliable for viewers who are familiar with the face, and unreliable for viewers who are not. One account of this contrast is that people become good at recognising a face by learning its configuration-the specific pattern of feature-to-feature measurements. In practice, these measurements differ across photos of the same face because objects appear more flat or convex depending on their distance from the camera. Here we connect this optical understanding to face configuration and identification accuracy. Changing camera-to-subject distance (0.32m versus 2.70m) impaired perceptual matching of unfamiliar faces, even though the images were presented at the same size. Familiar face matching was accurate across conditions. Reinstating valid distance cues mitigated the performance cost, suggesting that perceptual constancy compensates for distance-related changes in optical face shape. Acknowledging these distance effects could reduce identification errors in applied settings such as passport control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Face recognition is widely held to rely on 'configural processing', an analysis of spatial relations between facial features. We present three experiments in which viewers were shown distorted faces, and asked to resize these to their correct shape. Based on configural theories appealing to metric distances between features, we reason that this should be an easier task for familiar than unfamiliar faces (whose subtle arrangements of features are unknown). In fact, participants were inaccurate at this task, making between 8% and 13% errors across experiments. Importantly, we observed no advantage for familiar faces: in one experiment participants were more accurate with unfamiliars, and in two experiments there was no difference. These findings were not due to general task difficulty - participants were able to resize blocks of colour to target shapes (squares) more accurately. We also found an advantage of familiarity for resizing other stimuli (brand logos). If configural processing does underlie face recognition, these results place constraints on the definition of 'configural'. Alternatively, familiar face recognition might rely on more complex criteria - based on tolerance to within-person variation rather than highly specific measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Historically, it was believed the perceptual mechanisms involved in individuating faces developed only very slowly over the course of childhood, and that adult levels of expertise were not reached until well into adolescence. Over the last 10years, there has been some erosion of this view by demonstrations that all adult-like behavioural properties are qualitatively present in young children and infants. Determining the age of maturity, however, requires quantitative comparison across age groups, a task made difficult by the need to disentangle development in face perception from development in all the other cognitive factors that affect task performance. Here, we argue that full quantitative maturity is reached early, by 5–7years at the latest and possibly earlier. This is based on a comprehensive literature review of results in the 5-years-to-adult age range, with particular focus on the results of the few previous studies that are methodologically suitable for quantitative comparison of face effects across age, plus three new experiments testing development of holistic/configural processing (faces versus objects, disproportionate inversion effect), ability to encode novel faces (assessed via implicit memory) and face-space (own-age bias). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The own-race advantage in face recognition has been hypothesized as being due to a superiority in the processing of configural information for own-race faces. Here we examined the contributions of both configural and component processing to the own-race advantage. We recruited 48 Caucasian participants in Australia and 48 Chinese participants in Hong Kong, and had them study Caucasian and Chinese faces. After study, they were shown old faces (along with distractors) that were either blurred (isolating configural processing), in which high spatial frequencies were removed from the intact faces, or scrambled (isolating component processing), in which the locations of all face components were rearranged. Participants performed better on the memory test for own-race faces in both the blurred (configural) and scrambled (component) conditions, showing an own-race advantage for both configural and component processing. These results suggest that the own-race advantage in face recognition is due to a general facilitation in different forms of face processing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In the debate between expertise and domain-specific explanations of “special” processing for faces, a common belief is that behavioural studies support the expertise hypothesis. The present article refutes this view, via a combination of new data and review. We tested dog experts with confirmed good individuation of exemplars of their breed-of-expertise. In all experiments, standard results were confirmed for faces. However, dog experts showed no face-like processing for dogs on three behavioural tasks (inversion; the composite paradigm; and sensitivity to contrast reversal). The lack of holistic/configural processing, indicated in the first two of these tests, is shown by review to be consistent rather than inconsistent with previous studies of objects-of-expertise. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This experiment utilized a masked priming paradigm to explore the early processes involved in face recognition. The first experiment investigated implicit processing of the eyes and mouth in an upright face, using prime durations of 33 and 50 ms. The results demonstrate implicit processing of both the eyes and mouth, and support the configural processing theory of face processing. The second experiment used the same method with inverted faces and the third experiment was a combination of Experiments 1 and 2. The fourth experiment utilized misaligned faces as the primes. Based on the pattern of results from these experiments, we suggest that, when a face is inverted, the eyes and mouth are initially processed individually and are not linked until a later stage of processing. An upright face is proposed to be processed by analysis of its configuration, whereas an inverted face is initially processed using first-order relational information, and then converted to an upright representation and transferred to face specific regions for configural analysis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]