We investigated the early stages of face recognition and the role of featural and holistic face information. We exploited the fact that, on inversion, the alienating disorientation of the eyes and mouth in thatcherised faces is hardly detectable. This effect allows featural and holistic information to be dissociated and was used to test specific face-processing hypotheses. In inverted thatcherised faces, the cardinal features are already correctly oriented, whereas in undistorted faces, the whole Gestalt is coherent but all information is disoriented. Experiment 1 and experiment 3 revealed that, for inverted faces, featural information processing precedes holistic information. Moreover, the processing of contextual information is necessary to process local featural information within a short presentation time (26 ms). Furthermore, for upright faces, holistic information seems to be available faster than for inverted faces (experiment 2). These differences in processing inverted and upright faces presumably cause the differential importance of featural and holistic information for inverted and upright faces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BachmannT, 1991“Identification of spatially quantised tachistoscopic images of faces: How many pixels does it take to carry identity?”European Journal of Cognitive Psychology387–103
2.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ, 1993“Inversion and configuration of faces”Cognitive Psychology25281–316
3.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ HAbdiH, 2003“What are the routes to face recognition?”, in Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes. Advances in Visual Cognition Eds PetersonMRhodesG (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 21–47
4.
BiedermanIBarM, 1999“One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects”Vision Research392885–2899
5.
BiedermanICooperE E, 1991“Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming”Perception20585–593
6.
BiedermanIGerhardsteinP C, 1993“Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance191162–1182
7.
BiedermanIKalocsaiP, 1997“Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B3521203–1219
BoucartMHumphreysG WLorenceauJ, 1995“Automatic access to object identity: Attention to global information, not to particular physical dimensions, is important”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21584–601
10.
BradshawJ LWallaceG, 1971“Models for the processing and identification of faces”Perception & Psychophysics9443–448
11.
BrooksJ LDonLLewisJRaganJ, 1997“The role of configural and featural information in the recognition of faces” (Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University)
12.
BruceVBurtonA MDenchN, 1994“What's distinctive about a distinctive face?”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A47119–141
13.
CohenJ, 1988Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
14.
CohenJ DMacWhinneyBFlattMProvostJ, 1993“PsyScope: a new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers25257–271
15.
CooperE EBiedermanI, 1993“Metric versus viewpoint-invariant shape differences in visual object recognition”Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science34(4) 1080 (abstract)
16.
CooperL A, 1976“Demonstration of a mental analog of an external rotation”Perception & Psychophysics19296–302
17.
CooperL AShepardR N, 1973“Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images”, in Visual Information Processing Ed. ChaseW G (New York: Academic Press) pp 75–176
18.
EkmanPFriesenW VEllsworthP C, 1972Emotion in the Human Face: Guidelines for Research and an Integration of Findings (New York: Pergamon Press)
19.
ErdfelderEFaulFBuchnerA, 1996“G*Power: a general power analysis program”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers281–11
20.
FlavellJ HDragunsJ D, 1957“A microgenetic approach to perception and thought”Psychological Bulletin54197–217
21.
HarmonL D, 1973“The recognition of faces”Scientific American229(5) 71–82
22.
HuangJLiuCWechslerH, 1998“Eye detection and face recognition using evolutionary computation”, in From Theory to Applications Eds WechslerHPhillipsJ PBruceVFogelman-SoulieFHuangT (New York: Springer) pp 348–377
HumphreysG WRiddochM J, 1987To See but not to See. A Case Study of Visual Agnosia (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
25.
HumphreysG WRiddochM JQuinlanP T, 1988“Cascade processes in picture identification”Cognitive Neuropsychology567–103
26.
JolicoeurP, 1985“The time to name disoriented natural objects”Memory & Cognition13289–303
27.
JuddC MMcClellandG H, 1989Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)
28.
LederHBruceV, 1998“Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A51449–473
29.
LederHBruceV, 2000“When inverted faces are recognized: the role of configural information in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A53513–536
30.
LederHCandrianGHuberOBruceV, 2001“Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces”Perception3073–83
31.
LewisM BJohnstonR A, 1997“The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption”Perception26225–227
32.
LiuC HChaudhuriA, 1998“Are there qualitative differences between face processing in photographic positive and negative?”Perception271107–1122
33.
MachoSLederH, 1998“Your eyes only? A test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance241486–1500
34.
McKoneEMartiniPNakayamaK, 2001“Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27573–599
35.
MarrD, 1982Vision: A Computational Investigation into Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman)
36.
MondlochC JLe GrandRMaurerD, 2002“Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing”Perception31553–566
37.
PaquetLMerikleP M, 1984“Global precedence: the effect of exposure duration”Canadian Journal of Psychology3845–53
38.
ParksT ECossR GCossC S, 1985“Thatcher and the Cheshire cat: context and the processing of facial features”Perception14747–754
39.
PhillipsR J, 1979“Some exploratory experiments on memory for photographs of faces”Acta Psychologica4339–56
RakoverS S, 1999“Thompson's Margaret Thatcher illusion: when inversion fails”Perception281227–1230
42.
RakoverS S, 2002“Featural vs configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis”British Journal of Psychology931–30
43.
RakoverS STeucherB, 1997“Facial inversion effects: parts and whole relationship”Perception & Psychophysics59752–761
44.
ReisV AZaidelD W, 2001“Functional asymmetry in the human face: Perception of health in the left and right sides of the face”Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition6225–231
45.
RhodesG, 1988“Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance”Perception1743–63
46.
RhodesGBrakeSAtkinsonA, 1993“What's lost in inverted faces?”Cognition4725–57
47.
RiddochM JHumphreysG W, 1987“A case of integrative visual agnosia”Brain1101431–1462
48.
RobbinsRMcKoneE, 2003“Can holistic processing be learned from inverted faces?”Cognition8879–107
49.
RockI, 1974“The perception of disoriented figures”Scientific American230(1) 78–85
50.
ScassellatiB, 1998“Eye finding via face detection for a foveated active vision system”, in Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Tenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI/IAAI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 969–976
51.
SchwaningerACarbonC CLederH, 2003“Expert face processing: specialisation and constraints”, in The Development of Face Processing Eds SchwarzerGLederH (Göttingen: Hogrefe) pp 81–97
52.
SergentJ, 1984“An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception”British Journal of Psychology75221–242
53.
ShepardR NMetzlerJ, 1971“Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects”Science171701–703
54.
SieroffE, 2001“Feature processing and superiority of three-quarter views in face recognition”Brain and Cognition46272–276
55.
SnodgrassJ GLevy-BergerGHaydonM, 1985Human Experimental Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press)
56.
TanakaJ W, 2001“The entry point of face recognition: Evidence for face expertise”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General130534–543
57.
TanakaJ WFarahM J, 1993“Parts and wholes in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A46225–245
58.
TanakaJ WSengcoJ A, 1997“Features and their configuration in face recognition”Memory & Cognition25583–592
59.
TarrM JBülthoffH H, 1995“Is human object recognition better described by Geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993)”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance211494–1505
60.
TarrM JWilliamsPHaywardW GGauthierI, 1998“Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent”Nature Neuroscience1275–277
61.
ThompsonP, 1980“Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion”Perception9483–484
62.
ValentineTBruceV, 1988“Mental rotation of faces”Memory & Cognition16556–566
63.
YoungA WHayD CMcWeenyK HFludeB MEllisA W, 1985“Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features”Perception14737–746
