W2L1 - Face perception, disorders of face recognition, and super-recognisers

Question 1

Are faces special? What are some basic effects discussed on slide 2: Image Effects, Processing Depth, and Sociality

Answer 1

1. ) Paradoxical image effects (Tiny image diff spot; Big image diff no effect)
2. ) Complex processing (recognition involves between & within category judgement; semantic level ‘name’)
3. ) Essential to many aspects of social behaviour (evolutionary, newborn track normal more than scrambled)

Question 2

What are some models of face-processing (3 questions we can ask when we process faces)

Answer 2

1. ) Figural: Face / non-face
2. ) Semantic: General (Gender) or specific (Familiar)
3. ) Learnt/Innate

Question 3

Obvious reasons to think faces are special

Answer 3

1. ) Recognition drops with face-inversion
2. ) Recognition drops with reversed contrast
3. ) Identity stability: Caricatured faces > Veridical photographs)

Question 4

Behavioural evidence for a specialised face pathway

Answer 4

1. ) Face inversion effect
2. ) Holistic processing
   - The composite effect
   - The whole-part effect

Question 5

Behavioural evidence for face-inversion effect. Upright vs invered

Answer 5

Configural processing for upright faces

Featural processing for inverted faces

Question 6

Behavioural evidence for holistic processing. Composite. What does it suggest

Answer 6

Composite: Slow to identify half of a chimeric face aligned with an inconsistent other half-face.
> Mandatory processing of the whole face

Question 7

Behavioural evidence for holistic processing. Part-whole. What does it suggest

Answer 7

Better at distinguishing two face parts in the context of a whole face than in isolation:

Does not occur for controls (inverted/scrambled/house)

Question 8

Role of expertise in face-inversion

Answer 8

Diamond &Carey (1986):

Some inversion for landscapes (Smaller for house)
Comparative inversion for dog experts

Rossion & Curran (2010): Recognition inversion effects depend on level of expertise

Greater inversion effect for self-declared car-experts

Question 9

Gauthier & Tarr (1997). IV and DV

Answer 9

IV: Expertise
DV: Sensitivity/d’ and RT

Question 10

Gauthier & Tarr (1997). How long were their study

Answer 10

3240 trials.

Question 11

Gauthier & Tarr (1997). Results. What does it suggest.

Answer 11

1. ) Experts: Accurate and Fast
2. ) More sensitive to configural changes (Transformed condition slower RT than studied condition)

> Qualitative change in the recognition behavior of experts

Question 12

What did Farah (1990) argue in terms of cases of visual agnosia

Answer 12

Argued for two independent recognition systems:

Structural mechanisms: Associated with “normal” object recognition
Holistic mechanisms: Associated with face recognition

Question 13

Who is CK

Answer 13

Acute object agnosia; no deficit in face recognition

CK sees the face, not the constituent fish…

Question 14

How do we measure facial recognition

Answer 14

1. ) Before They Were Famous
2. ) Cambridge Face Memory Test
3. ) Cambridge Face Perception Test

Question 15

BTWF Test on Facial Recognition. Flaw?

Answer 15

59 pictures of celebrities (as children)
- Correct identification requires generalization across substantial change in the appearance of the face

Flaw:
Does depend somewhat on prior exposure…

Question 16

CFMT on Facial Recognition. Flaw?

Answer 16

6 male faces: 3 trained/ 3 alt forced choice at 4 difficult levels

Flaw:
Might be reliant on memory

Question 17

CFPT on Facial Recognition.

Answer 17

Test images at ¾ view
- 6 frontal non-target faces morphed with target (different %)

Rank from most to least similar

Question 18

Greeble learning in a prosopagnosic

Answer 18

Edward.

Normal Greeble recognition performance
Suggests face deficits do not involve brain processes used to acquire Greeble expertise

Question 19

What are some properties of developmental prosopagnosia. What are 2 notions on face recognition ability.

Answer 19

• Absence of brain damage or other cognitive deficits.
• 2%–2.5% population

1. ) Healthy/Pathological
2. ) Broad (normal) distribution of face recognition ability, with developmental prosopagnosia on lower tail and superrecognisor on upper tail

Question 20

Diff between developmental prosopagnosics and superecognisers in relation to film

Answer 20

Superrecognisor: Can recognise minors
Prosopagnosia: Little interest because they cannot follow characters

Question 21

How do superrecognisors display the face-inversion effect. What does it suggest?

Answer 21

Larger face inversion effect

> Supports normative idea that inversion effect is not related to QUALITATIVE different processing compared to normals.

Question 22

Behaviourally, what are some circumstances/features facial recognition dependent on:

Answer 22

Recognition:

• Occurs in extreme deformation
• Depend on external features (e.g. prosopagnosics)