Features are Also Important: Contributions of Featural and Configural Processing to Face Recognition

Abstract

It has been suggested that face recognition is primarily based on configural information, with featural information playing little or no role. We investigated this idea by comparing the prototype effect for face prototypes that emphasized either featural or configural processing. In Experiment 1, participants showed a tendency to commit false alarms in response to nonstudied prototypes, and this tendency was equivalent for featural and configural prototypes. Experiment 2 replicated this finding, and provided support for the assumption that the two types of prototypes differed in terms of featural and configural processing: Face inversion eliminated the prototype effect for configural prototypes but not for featural prototypes. These results suggest that both featural and configural processing make important contributions to face recognition, and that their effects are dissociable.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartlett

J.C.

Searcy

(1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–316.

Bruce

Doyle

Dench

Burton

(1991). Remembering facial configurations. Cognition, 38, 109–144.

Cabeza

Bruce

Kato

Oda

(1999). The prototype effect in face recognition: Extension and limits. Memory & Cognition, 27, 139–151.

Farah

M.J.

Wilson

K.D.

Drain

Tanaka

J.N.

(1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.

Kamachi

Mukaida

Yoshikawa

Kato

Oda

Akamatsu

(1998). Facial image manipulation system for psychological research on face processing [in Japanese]. Technical Report of The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, HIP97–39, 73–80.

Leder

Bruce

(1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 449–473.

Leder

Bruce

(in press). When inverted faces are recognised: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Loftus

E.F.

(1977). Shifting human color memory. Memory & Cognition, 5, 696–699.

Loftus

E.F.

Miller

D.G.

Burns

H.J.

(1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.

10.

Macho

Leder

(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.

11.

Metcalfe

(1990). Composite holographic associative recall model (CHARM) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 145–160.

12.

Rakover

S.S.

Teucher

(1997). Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationships. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 752–761.

13.

Reinitz

M.T.

Lammers

W.J.

Cochran

B.P.

(1992). Memory-conjunction errors: Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory. Memory & Cognition, 20, 1–11.

14.

Reinitz

M.T.

Morrissey

Demb

(1994). Role of attention in face encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 161–168.

15.

Schooler

J.W.

Tanaka

J.W.

(1991). Composites, compromises, and CHARM: What is the evidence for blend memory representations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 96–100.

16.

Solso

R.L.

McCarthy

J.E.

(1981). Prototype formation of faces: A case study of pseudo-memory. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 499–503.

17.

Tanaka

J.W.

Farah

M.J.

(1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.

18.

Tanaka

J.W.

Sengco

J.A.

(1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.

19.

Valentine

(1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effects of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471–491.