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.
AbudarhamN.ShkillerL.YovelG. (2019). Critical features for face recognition. Cognition, 182, 73–83.
2.
AkaikeH. (1983). Information measures and model selection. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 50, 277–290.
3.
AlgomD.FitousiD. (2016). Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability-integrality distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1352–1383.
4.
AmishavR.KimchiR. (2010). Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 743–748.
5.
AshbyF. G.GottR. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 33–53.
6.
AshbyF. G.LeeW. W. (1991). Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 150–172.
7.
BalotaD. A.SpielerD. H. (1999). Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: Beyond measures of central tendency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 32–55.
8.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 160–166.
9.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.WatsonJ. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 495–523.
10.
BensonP. J.PerretD. I. (1991). Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 105–135.
11.
BindemannM.BurtonA. M.LeutholdH.SchweinbergerS. R. (2008). Brain potential correlates of face recognition: Geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. Psychophysiology, 45, 535–544.
12.
BradshawJ. L.WallaceG. (1971). Models for the processing and identification of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 443–448.
13.
BurbeckS. L.LuceR. D. (1982). Evidence from auditory simple reaction times for both change and level detectors. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 117–133.
14.
BurtonA. M. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1467–1485.
15.
BurtonA. M.SchweinbergerS. R.JenkinsR.KaufmannJ. M. (2015). Arguments against a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 482–496.
16.
BuzyW. M.MedoffD. R.SchweitzerJ. B. (2009). Intra-individual variability among children with ADHD on a working memory task: An ex-Gaussian approach. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 441–459.
17.
CassiaV. M.PicozziM.KuefnerD.BricoloE.TuratiC. (2009). Holistic processing for faces and cars in preschool-aged children and adults: Evidence from the composite effect. Developmental Science, 12, 236–248.
18.
ChengX. J.McCarthyC. J.WangT. S.PalmeriT. J.LittleD. R. (2018). Composite faces are not (necessarily) processed coactively: A test using systems factorial technology and logical-rule models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(6), 833–862.
19.
CoyleT. R. (2003). A review of the worst performance rule: Evidence, theory, and alternative hypotheses. Intelligence, 31, 567–587.
20.
CurbyK. M.GoldsteinR. R.BlackerK. (2013). Disrupting perceptual grouping of face parts impairs holistic face processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 83–91.
21.
DeGutisJ.MercadoR. J.WilmerJ.RosenblattA. (2013). Individual differences in holistic processing predict the own-race advantage in recognition memory. PLOS ONE, 8, Article e58253.
22.
DeGutisJ.WilmerJ.MercadoR. J.CohanS. (2013). Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability. Cognition, 126, 87–100.
23.
DiamondR.CareyS. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107–117.
24.
DonnellyN.CornesK.MenneerT. (2012). An examination of the processing capacity of features in the Thatcher illusion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1475–1487.
25.
DuncanJ. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–515.
26.
EllisH. D.ShepherdJ. W.DaviesG. M. (1979). Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: Some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception, 8, 431–439.
27.
EllisonJ. W.MassaroD. W. (1997). Featural evaluation, integration, and judgment of facial affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 213–226.
28.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
29.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. D.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998). What is” special” about face perception?Psychological Review, 105(3), 482–498.
30.
FitousiD. (2013). Mutual information, perceptual independence, and holistic face perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 983–1000.
31.
FitousiD. (2014). On the internal representation of numerical magnitude and physical size. Experimental Psychology, 61, 149–163.
32.
FitousiD. (2015). Composite faces are not processed holistically: Evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2037–2060.
33.
FitousiD. (2016). Comparing the role of selective and divided attention in the composite face effect: Insights from attention operating characteristic (AOC) plots and cross-contingency correlations. Cognition, 148, 34–46.
34.
FitousiD. (2018). Feature binding in visual short-term memory: A general recognition theory analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1104–1113.
35.
FitousiD. (2019a). Can we perceive two colors at the same time? A direct test of Huang and Pashler’s (2007) Boolean map theory of visual attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1532–1550.
36.
FitousiD. (2019b). From global-to-local? Uncovering the temporal dynamics of the composite face illusion using distributional analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2331.
37.
FitousiD. (2020). Linking the ex-Gaussian parameters to cognitive stages: Insights from the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38.
FitousiD.AlgomD. (2006). Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line?Memory & Cognition, 34, 445–457.
39.
FitousiD.AlgomD. (2018). A system factorial technology analysis of the size congruity effect: Implications for numerical cognition and stochastic modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 84, 57–73.
40.
FitousiD.AlgomD. (2019). A model for two-digit number processing based on a joint Garner and system factorial technology analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000679
41.
GarnerW. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. New York: Wiley.
42.
GauthierI.ChuaK.-W.RichlerJ. J. (2018). How holistic processing of faces relates to cognitive control and intelligence. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1449–1460.
43.
GauthierI.WilliamsP.TarrM. J.TanakaJ. (1998). Training “greeble” experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38, 2401–2428.
44.
GoldJ. M.MundyP. J.TjanB. S. (2012). The perception of a face is no more than the sum of its parts. Psychological Science, 23, 427–434.
45.
GordonB.CarsonK. (1990). The basis for choice reaction time slowing in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition, 13, 148–166.
46.
HaleS.JansenJ. (1994). Global processing-time coefficients characterize individual and group differences in cognitive speed. Psychological Science, 5, 384–389.
47.
HeathcoteA.PopielS. J.MewhortD. J. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 340–347.
48.
HillH.BruceV.AkamatsuS. (1995). Perceiving the sex and race of faces: The role of shape and colour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 261, 367–373.
49.
HockleyW. E. (1984). Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 598–615.
50.
HohleR. H. (1965). Inferred components of reaction times as functions of foreperiod duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 382–386.
51.
HoleG. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74.
52.
JacquesC.RossionB. (2009). The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: Electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. Journal of Vision, 9, 8.
53.
JenkinsR.BurtonA. M. (2011). Stable face representations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1671–1683.
54.
JenkinsR.WhiteD.Van MontfortX.BurtonA. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323.
55.
KahnemanD.ChajczykD. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 497–509.
56.
KahnemanD.HenikA. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In KubovyM.PomerantzJ. R. (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 181–211). Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47–70.
58.
KonarY.BennetP. J.SekulerA. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38–43.
59.
KramerR. S.ManesiZ.TowlerA.ReynoldsM. G.BurtonA. M. (2018). Familiarity and within-person facial variability: The importance of the internal and external features. Perception, 47, 3–15.
60.
Leth-SteensenC.ElbazZ. K.DouglasV. I. (2000). Mean response times, variability, and skew in the responding of ADHD children: A response time distributional approach. Acta Psychologica, 104(2), 167–190.
61.
LoftusG. R.ObergM. A.DillonA. M. (2004). Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. Psychological Review, 111, 835–863.
62.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press.
63.
MachoS.LederH. (1998). Your eyes only? A test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1486–1500.
64.
MatzkeD.WagenmakersE. J. (2009). Psychological interpretation of the ex-Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: A diffusion model analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 798–817.
65.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
66.
MelaraR. D.MountsJ. R. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21(5), 627–645.
67.
MewhortD. J.BraunJ. G.HeathcoteA. (1992). Response time distributions and the Stroop task: A test of the Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 872–882.
68.
MichelC.RossionB.HanJ.ChungC. S.CaldaraR. (2006). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychological Science, 17, 608–615.
69.
MillerJ. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.
70.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
71.
NelderJ. A.MeadR. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal, 7(4), 308–313.
72.
PomerantzJ. R.AgrawalA.JewellS. W.JeongM.KhanH.LozanoS. C. (2003). Contour grouping inside and outside of facial contexts. Acta Psychologica, 114, 245–271.
73.
RatcliffR. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.
74.
RatcliffR.ΜrdockB. B. (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 83, 190–214.
75.
RatcliffR.TuerlinckxF. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438–481.
76.
RezlescuC.SusiloT.WilmerJ. B.CaramazzaA. (2017). The inversion, part-whole, and composite effects reflect distinct perceptual mechanisms with varied relationships to face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1961–1973.
77.
RhodesG. (1996). Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Psychology Press.
78.
RichlerJ. J.GauthierI. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing. Psychological Bulletin, 14, 1281–1302.
79.
RichlerJ. J.GauthierI.WengerM. J.PalmeriT. J. (2008). Holistic processing of faces: Perceptual and decisional components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 328–342.
80.
RichlerJ. J.PalmeriT. J.GauthierI. (2012). Meanings, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 553.
81.
RichlerJ. J.PalmeriT. J.GauthierI. (2013). The effects of varying configuration in the composite task support an attentional account of holistic processing. Visual Cognition, 21, 711–715.
82.
RichlerJ. J.TanakaJ. W.BrownD. D.GauthierI. (2008). Why does selective attention to parts fail in face processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,& Cognition, 34, 1356–1368.
83.
RichlerJ. J.WongY. K.GauthierI. (2011). Perceptual expertise as a shift from strategic interference to automatic holistic processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 129–134.
84.
RiegerT.MillerJ. (2019). Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models. Psychological Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01176-4
85.
RoelofsA. (2012). Attention, spatial integration, and the tail of response time distributions in Stroop task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 135–150.
86.
RohrerD. (1996). On the relative and absolute strength of a memory trace. Memory & Cognition, 24(2), 188–201.
87.
RossionB. (2013). The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding holistic face perception. Visual Cognition, 21, 139–253.
88.
SavilleC. W.PawlingR.TrullingerM.DaleyD.IntriligatorJ.KleinC. (2011). On the stability of instability: Optimising the reliability of intra-subject variability of reaction times. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 148–153.
89.
SchmiedekF.OberauerK.WilhelmO.SüßH.-M.WittmannW. W. (2007). Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 414–429.
90.
SchwarzW.MillerJ. (2012). Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 555–574.
91.
SergentJ. (1984). An investigation of component and configural processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221–242.
92.
SergentJ. (1986). Microgenesis of face perception. In EllisH. D.JeevesM. A.NewcombeF.YoungA. (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 17–33). Springer.
93.
SpielerD. H. (2001). Modeling age-related changes in information processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 217–234.
94.
SpielerD. H.BalotaD. A.FaustM. E. (1996). Stroop performance in normal older adults and individuals with senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461–479.
95.
SpielerD. H.BalotaD. A.FaustM. E. (2000). Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 506–526.
96.
SteinhauserM.HübnerR. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1398–1412.
97.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.
98.
SundayM. A.RichlerJ. J.GauthierI. (2017). Limited evidence of individual differences in holistic processing in different versions of the part-whole paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1453–1465.
99.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245.
100.
TownsendJ. T.NozawaG. (1995). On the spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321–359.
101.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J.HouptJ. W. (2018). Uncovering mental architecture and related mechanisms in elementary human perception, cognition, and action. In WixtedJ. T. (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). Wiley.
102.
TseC. S.BalotaD. A.YapM. J.DuchekJ. M.McCabeD. P. (2010). Effects of healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer’s type on components of response time distributions in three attention tasks. Neuropsychology, 24, 300–315.
103.
TverskyA.KrantzD. H. (1969). Similarity of schematic faces: A test of interdimensional additivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 124–128.
104.
UnsworthN.SpillersG. J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 392–406.
105.
Van ZandtT. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 424–465.
106.
Von Der HeideR.WengerJ. M.BittnerJ.FitousiD. (2018). Converging operations and the role of perceptual and decisional influences on the perception of faces: Neural and behavioral evidence. Brain and Cognition, 122, 59–75.
107.
WangR.LiJ.FangH.TianM.LiuJ. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23, 169–177.
108.
WengerM. J.IngvalsonE. M. (2002). A decisional component of holistic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 872–892.
109.
WengerM. J.IngvalsonE. M. (2003). Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1106–1118.
110.
WestonN. J.PerfectT. J. (2005). Effects of processing bias on the recognition of composite face halves. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1038–1042.
111.
WilhelmO.OberauerK. (2006). Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus–response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 18–50.
112.
YoungA. W.BurtonA. M. (2017). Recognizing faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 212–217.
113.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
