Compelling evidence that faces are perceived holistically or configurally comes from the composite face illusion: Identical top halves of a face are perceived as being different if they are aligned with different bottom halves. The visual illusion disappears when the top and bottom face halves are spatially misaligned. Whether this is because the two halves no longer form a whole face (ie they form two segmented parts), or because of an increase in interfeatures distance in the misaligned condition (eg eyes-mouth distance) remains unclear. Here, thirty-four participants performed a delayed matching composite task in which the amount of spatial misalignment between face halves varied parametrically (from 8.33% of face width to 100%). The difference in performance between aligned and misaligned faces (ie the composite face effect) was already of full magnitude at the smallest level of misalignment. These results imply that a small spatial misalignment is sufficient to measure the composite face effect. From a theoretical standpoint, they indicate that it is the breaking of a whole configuration rather than the increase in relative distance between the face parts that explains the presence or absence of the composite face effect, clarifying an outstanding issue concerning the nature of holistic face perception.
BiedermanIShiffrarM, 1987, “Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual learning task”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning, Memory, and Cognition13640–645.
2.
BiedermanIKalocsaiP, 1997, “Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B3521203–1219.
3.
CareyS, 1992, “Becoming a face expert”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B33595–103.
CooperE EWojanT J, 2000“Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition26470–488.
6.
de HeeringAMaurerD, 2012, “Face memory deficits in patients deprived of early visual input by bilateral congenital cataracts”Developmental Psychobiology doi:10.1002/dev.21094.
7.
DiamondRCareyS, 1986, “Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General115107–117.
8.
FreireALeeKSymonsL A, 2000, “The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence”Perception29159–170; doi:10.1068/p3012.
9.
GoffauxVRossionB, 2006, “Faces are ‘spatial’—Holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance321023–1039.
10.
HaigN D, 1984, “The effect of feature displacement on face recognition”Perception13502–512; doi:10.1068/p130505.
11.
HaigN D, 1985, “How faces differ: A new comparative technique”Perception14601–615; doi:10.1068/p140601.
12.
HendersonJWilliamsCFalkR, 2005“Eye movements are functional during face learning”Memory and Cognition3398–106.
13.
HoleG J, 1994, “Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces”Perception2365–74; doi:10.1068/p230065.
14.
HsiaoJ HCottrellG W, 2008, “Two fixations suffice in face recognition”Psychological Science9998–1006.
15.
JacquesCRossionB, 2010, “Misaligning face halves increases and delays the N170 specifically for upright faces: Implications for the nature of early face representations”Brain Research131896–109.
16.
JiangFBlanzVRossionB, 2011, “Holistic processing of shape cues in face identification: Evidence from face inversion, composite faces and acquired prosopagnosia”Visual Cognition191003–1034; doi:10.1080/13506285.2011.604360.
17.
KimchiR, 2009, “Perceptual organization and visual attention”Progress in Brain Research17615–33.
18.
KramerA FJacobsonA, 1991, “Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing”Perception & Psychophysics50267–284; doi:10.3758/BF03206750.
19.
Le GrandRMondlochC JMaurerDBrentH P, 2001, “Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing”Nature410890.
20.
Le GrandRMondlochC JMaurerDBrentH P, 2004, “Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation”Psychological Science15762–768.
21.
LetourneauS MMitchellT V, 2008, “Behavioral and ERP measures of holistic face processing in a composite task”Brain and Cognition67234–245.
McKoneEMartiniPNakayamaK, 2003, “Isolating holistic processing in faces (and perhaps objects)”, in Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes Eds PetersonM ARhodesG, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp 92–119.
24.
McKoneEYovelG, 2009, “Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not?Psychonomics Bulletin & Review16778–797.
25.
MichelCRossionBHanJChungC-SCaldaraR, 2006, “Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of our own race”Psychological Science17608–615.
26.
MondlochC JLe GrandRMaurerD, 2002, “Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing”Perception31553–566; doi:10.1068/p3339.
27.
MondlochC JLe GrandRMaurerD, 2003, “Early visual experience drives the development of some (but not all) aspects of face processing”, in The Development of Face Processing in Infancy and Early Childhood: Current Perspectives Eds PascalisOSlaterA, (New York: Nova) pp 99–117.
28.
de XivryJ-J OrbanRamonMLefèvrePRossionB, 2008, “Reduced fixation on the upper area of personally familiar faces following acquired prosopagnosia”Journal of Neuropsychology2245–268.
29.
PomerantzJ RKubovyM, 1986, “Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization”, in Handbook of Perception and Human Performancevolume 3, Eds BoffK RKaufmanLThomasJ, (New York: Wiley) pp 3601–3646.
30.
RhodesGBrakeSAtkinsonA P, 1993, “What's lost in inverted faces”Cognition4725–57.
31.
RobbinsRMcKoneE, 2007, “No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioral tasks”Cognition10334–79.
32.
RossionB, 2008“Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception”Acta Psychologica128274–289.
33.
RossionB, 2009, “Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis”Acta Psychologica132300–312.
34.
RossionB, 2013, “The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception”Visual Cognition21139–253.
35.
RossionBBoremanseA, 2008, “Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: Evidence from the face composite illusion”Journal of Vision8(4):3, 1–13.
36.
RossionBDelvenneJ-FDebatisseDGoffauxVBruyerRCrommelinckMGueritJ-M, 1999“Spatio-temporal brain localization of the face inversion effect”Biological Psychology50173–189.
37.
SadrJJarudiISinhaP, 2003, “The role of eyebrows in face recognition”Perception32285–293; doi:10.1068/p5027.
38.
SergentJ, 1984, “An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception”British Journal of Psychology75221–242.
39.
SergentJ, 1986, “Microgenesis of face perception”, in Aspects of Face Processing Eds EllisH DJeevesM ANewcombeFYoungA M, (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff) pp 17–33.
40.
TanakaJ WFarahM, 1993, “Parts and wholes in face recognition”The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A46225–245; doi:10.1080/14640749308401045.
41.
TanakaJGordonI, 2011, “Featural, configural and holistic perception of faces”, in Handbook of Face Perception Eds CalderAHaxbyJRhodesGJohnsonM, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp 177–194.
42.
Taschereau-DumouchelVRossionBSchynsP GGosselinF, 2010, “Interattribute distances do not represent the identity of real-world faces”Frontiers in Psychology1(159) 1–10; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg. 2010.00159.
43.
TaubertJAlaisD, 2009, “The composite illusion requires composite face stimuli to be biologically plausible”Vision Research491877–1885.
44.
TownsendJ TAshbyF G, 1983Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
45.
WagemansJFeldmanJGepshteinSKimchiRPomerantzJ Rvan der HelmP Avan LeeuwenC, 2012“A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization”Psychological Bulletin1381218–1252.
46.
WertheimerM, 1925/1967, “Gestalt theory”, in A source Book of Gestalt Psychology Ed. EllisW D, (New York: Humanities Press) pp 1–11 (Original work published in 1925.)
47.
YoungA WBruceV, 2011, “Understanding person perception”British Journal of Psychology102959–974.
48.
YoungA WHellawellDHayD C, 1987, “Configurational information in face perception”Perception16747–759; doi:10.1068/p160747.
