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.
BehrmannM.AvidanG. (2005). Congenital prosopagnosia: Face-blind from birth. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 180–187.
2.
BehrmannM.AvidanG.MarottaJ. J.KimchiR. (2005). Detailed exploration of face-related processing in congenital prosopagnosia: 1. Behavioral findings. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1130–1149.
3.
BusignyT.RossionB. (2011). Holistic processing impairment can be restricted to faces in acquired prosopagnosia: Evidence from the global/local Navon effect. Journal of Neuropsychology, 5, 1–14.
4.
CabezaR.KatoT. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429–433.
5.
CheungC. H. M.RutherfordH. J. V.MayesL. C.McPartlandJ. C. (2010). Neural responses to faces reflect social personality traits. Social Neuroscience, 5, 351–359.
6.
DeGutisJ. M.BentinS.RobertsonL. C.D’EspositoM. (2007). Functional plasticity in ventral temporal cortex following cognitive rehabilitation of a congenital prosopagnosic. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1790–1802.
7.
de HeeringA.HouthuysS.RossionB. (2007). Holistic face processing is mature at 4 years of age: Evidence from the composite face effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 57–70.
DuchaineB. C.NakayamaK. (2005). Dissociations of face and object recognition in developmental prosopagnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 249–261.
10.
DuchaineB. C.NakayamaK. (2006). Developmental prosopagnosia: A window to content-specific face processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 166–173.
11.
FanJ.McCandlissB. D.SommerT.RazA.PosnerM. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.
12.
GarridoL.FurlN.DraganskiB.WeiskopfN.StevensJ.TanG. C. Y.DuchaineB. (2009). Voxel-based morphometry reveals reduced grey matter volume in the temporal cortex of developmental prosopagnosics. Brain, 132, 3443–3455.
13.
HappéF.BrownellH.WinnerE. (1999). Acquired “theory of mind” impairments following stroke. Cognition, 70, 211–240.
14.
KonarY.BennettP. J.SekulerA. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38–43.
15.
Le GrandR.CooperP. A.MondlochC. J.LewisT. L.SagivN.de GelderB.MaurerD. (2006). What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia?Brain and Cognition, 61, 139–158.
16.
Le GrandR.MondlochC. J.MaurerD.BrentH. P. (2001). Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.
17.
Le GrandR.MondlochC. J.MaurerD.BrentH. P. (2004). Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation. Psychological Science, 15, 762–768.
18.
LiuJ.HarrisA.KanwisherN. (2010). Perception of face parts and face configurations: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 203–211.
19.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
20.
McKoneE.MartiniP.NakayamaK. (2001). Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 573–599.
21.
MichelC.RossionB.HanJ.ChungC. S.CaldaraR. (2006). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychological Science, 17, 608–615.
22.
MorganC. J.LeSageJ. B.KosslynS. M. (2009). Types of deception revealed by individual differences in cognitive abilities. Social Neuroscience, 4, 554–569.
23.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
24.
PlominR.HaworthC. M. A.DavisO. S. P. (2009). Common disorders are quantitative traits. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 872–878.
25.
RamonM.BusignyT.RossionB. (2010). Impaired holistic processing of unfamiliar individual faces in acquired prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 48, 933–944.
26.
RavenJ.RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
RotshteinP.GengJ. J.DriverJ.DolanR. J. (2007). Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1435–1452.
29.
RussellR.DuchaineB.NakayamaK. (2009). Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 252–257.
30.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.
31.
SergentJ. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221–242.
32.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 46, 225–245.
33.
TanakaJ. W.KayJ. B.GrinnellE.StansfieldB.SzechterL. (1998). Face recognition in young children: When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Visual Cognition, 5, 479–496.
34.
WilhelmO.HerzmannG.KuninaO.DanthiirV.SchachtA.SommerW. (2010). Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces: One element of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 530–548.
35.
WilmerJ. B. (2008). How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis. Spatial Vision, 21, 561–579.
36.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
37.
YovelG.KanwisherN. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889–898.
38.
YovelG.KanwisherN. (2008). The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 933–939.
ZhuQ.SongY.HuS.LiX.TianM.ZhenZ.LiuJ. (2010). Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face perception. Current Biology, 20, 137–142.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
