4.5 Article

Inverted faces benefit from whole-face processing

期刊

COGNITION
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104105

关键词

Aperture viewing; Face perception; Face inversion effect; Holistic face processing

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [1599941, ES/J500057/1]
  2. European Research Council [ERC-2016-StG-715824]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upright faces are thought to engage holistic processing whereby local regions are integrated into a unified whole for the purposes of rapid, efficient analysis. In contrast, inverted faces are thought to recruit a slower, less-accurate serial analysis of local features. Aperture paradigms, whereby a target face is revealed by a dynamic viewing window that shifts over the stimulus image, offer a compelling test of this view. If upright faces are processed holistically, perceptual judgements ought to be substantially disrupted when stimuli are viewed through apertures. In contrast, aperture viewing should produce little or no decrement in perceptual decisions when judging inverted faces, as they are thought to be subjected to serial feature-based analysis. Here we present four experiments that elucidate the effects of aperture viewing on the perception of upright and inverted faces. In our first two experiments, we find evidence of disproportionate aperture effects for upright faces relative to inverted faces. However, these findings are qualified by the fact that observers found it harder to discriminate inverted faces presented in the 'baseline' whole-face condition. When observers' ability to discriminate faces in the whole-face condition was matched for difficulty (Experiments 3 and 4), we show that upright and inverted faces produce very similar aperture effects. These findings indicate that both upright and inverted faces benefit from whole-face processing and accord with other lines of evidence that faces engage qualitatively similar types of processing in both orientations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据