When Faces Are Heads: View-Dependent Recognition of Faces Altered Relationally or Componentially
Abstract
When faces are viewed from different angles the appearance of facial features undergoes dramatic changes. We investigated two types of 3D-head models in frontal and three-quarter views, varying either in componential information such as different eyes, mouths and noses, or in relational information. Variations of the latter can only be investigated using 3D-head versions. Experiment 1 revealed high costs of transfer in recognition performance when views change, that were similar for both componentially and relationally altered faces. In Experiment 2, whole-to-part superiority was investigated by presenting isolated parts of critical features in addition to the whole face. Recognition of the whole face was only superior when views were identical. The results support the hypothesis of picture-based and view-dependent processing. Thus, there seems to be no efficient view-independent representation, at least for relatively unfamiliar faces.
References
Biederman, I., Kalocsai, P. (1997). Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London: Biological Sciences, 352, 1203– 1219Blanz, V., Vetter, T (1999). A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 187– 194Bruce, V (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105– 116Bruce, V. (1994). Stability from variation: The case of face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 47, 5– 28Bruce, V., Valentine, T., Baddeley, A. D. (1987). The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 109– 120Bruce, V., Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305– 327Carbon, C. C., Leder, H. (2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception, 34, 1117– 1134Carbon, C. C., Leder, H. (2006). The Mona Lisa effect: Is ‘our’ Lisa fame or fake?. Perception, 35, 411– 414Carbon, C. C., Schweinberger, S. R., Kaufmann, J. M., Leder, H. (2005). The Thatcher Illusion seen by the brain: An event-related brain potentials study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 544– 555Diamond, R., Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107– 117Hill, H., Schyns, P. G., Akamatsu, S. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition, 62, 201– 222Krouse, F. L. (1981). Effects of pose, pose change, and delay on face recognition performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 651– 654Leder, H., Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53, 513– 536Leder, H., Carbon, C. C. (2004). Part to whole effects and configural processing in faces. Psychology Science, 46, 531– 543Leder, H., Carbon, C. C. (2005). When context hinders. Context superiority versus learn-test-compatibilities in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58, 235– 250Leder, H., Carbon, C. C. (2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 19– 29Liu, C. H., Chaudhuri, A. (2002). Reassessing the 3/4 view effect in face recognition. Cognition, 83, 31– 48Loftus, G. R., Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476– 490Marr, D (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: FreemanRhodes, G. (1993). Configural coding, expertise, and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 22, 19– 41Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Atkinson, A (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces?. Cognition, 47, 25– 57Schyns, P. G., Bülthoff, H. H. (1993). Conditions for viewpoint dependent face recognition. (No. 1432): MIT A.I. MemoSieroff, E. (2001). Feature processing and superiority of three-quarter views in face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 46, 272– 276Stevenage, S. V. (1998). Which twin are you? A demonstration of induced categorical perception of identical twin faces. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 39– 57Tanaka, J. W., Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46, 225– 245Tarr, M. J., Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?. Psychological Science, 1, 253– 256Tulving, E., Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 359– 380alentin, D., Abdi, H., Edelman, B. (1997). What represents a face? A computational approach for the integration of physiological and psychological data. Perception, 26, 1271– 1288Valentin, D., Abdi, H., Edelman, B., Posamentier, M. (2001). 2D or not 2D? That is the question: What can we learn from computational models operating on two-dimensional representations of faces?. In M. J. Wenger (Ed.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. Scientific psychology series (pp. 429-465). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
