Local Jekyll and Global Hyde

Abstract

The main concern in face-processing research is to understand the processes underlying the identification of faces. In the study reported here, we addressed this issue by examining whether local or global information supports face identification. We developed a new methodology called “iHybrid.” This technique combines two famous identities in a gaze-contingent paradigm, which simultaneously provides local, foveated information from one face and global, complementary information from a second face. Behavioral face-identification performance and eye-tracking data showed that the visual system identified faces on the basis of either local or global information depending on the location of the observer’s first fixation. In some cases, a given observer even identified the same face using local information on one trial and global information on another trial. A validation in natural viewing conditions confirmed our findings. These results clearly demonstrate that face identification is not rooted in a single, or even preferred, information-gathering strategy.

Keywords

face identification eye movements gaze contingent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Althoff

R. R.

Cohen

N. J.

(1999). Eye-movement-based memory effect: A reprocessing effect in face perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 997–1010.

Blais

Jack

R. E.

Scheepers

Fiset

Caldara

(2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS ONE, 3(8), e3022. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003022

Brainard

D. H.

(1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

Butler

Blais

Gosselin

Bub

Fiset

(2010). Recognizing famous people. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1444–1449.

Cabeza

Kato

(2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429–433.

Caldara

Miellet

(2011). iMap: A novel method for statistical fixation mapping of eye movement data. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 864–878.

Caldara

Zhou

Miellet

(2010). Putting culture under the spotlight reveals universal information use for face recognition. PLoS ONE, 5(3), e9708. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009708

Chauvin

Worsley

K. J.

Schyns

P. G.

Arguin

Gosselin

(2005). Accurate statistical tests for smooth classification images. Journal of Vision, 5(9), Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/5/9/1

Cornelissen

F. W.

Peters

E. M.

Palmer

(2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 613–617.

10.

Dakin

S. C.

Hess

R. F.

Ledgeway

Achtman

R. L.

(2002). What causes nonmonotonic tuning of fMRI response to noisy images? Current Biology, 12, R476–R477.

11.

Farah

M. J.

Tanaka

J. W.

Drain

H. M.

(1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628–634.

12.

Gosselin

Schyns

P. G.

(2001). Bubbles: A new technique to reveal the use of visual information in recognition tasks. Vision Research, 41, 2261–2271.

13.

Groner

Walder

Groner

(1984). Looking at faces: Local and global aspects of scanpaths. In Gale

A. G.

Johnson

(Eds.), Theoretical and applied aspects of eye movements research (pp. 523–533). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

14.

Henderson

J. M.

Williams

C. C.

Falk

R. J.

(2005). Eye movements are functional during face learning. Memory & Cognition, 33, 98–106.

15.

Hsiao

J. H.-W.

Cottrell

(2008). Two fixations suffice in face recognition. Psychological Science, 19, 998–1006.

16.

Jack

R. E.

Blais

Scheepers

Schyns

P. G.

Caldara

(2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Current Biology, 19, 1543–1548.

17.

Kanwisher

(2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 759–763.

18.

Kelly

D. J.

Miellet

Caldara

(2010). Culture shapes eye movements for visually homogeneous objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. Retrieved from http://www.frontiersin.org/perception_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00006/full

19.

Kita

Gunji

Sakihara

Inagaki

Kaga

Nakagawa

Hosokawa

(2010). Scanning strategies do not modulate face identification: Eye-tracking and near-infrared spectroscopy study. PLoS ONE, 5(6), e11050. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883577/

20.

Maurer

Le Grand

Mondloch

(2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.

21.

Oliva

Schyns

P. G.

(1997). Coarse blobs, or fine scale edges? Evidence that information diagnosticity changes the perception of complex visual stimuli. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 72–107.

22.

Oliva

Torralba

Schyns

P. G.

(2006). Hybrid images. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 25, 527–532.

23.

Rodger

Kelly

Blais

Caldara

(2010). Inverting faces does not abolish cultural diversity in eye movements. Perception, 39, 1491–1503.

24.

Schyns

P. G.

Bonnar

Gosselin

(2002). Show me the features: Understanding recognition from the use of visual information. Psychological Science, 13, 402–409.

25.

Schyns

P. G.

Oliva

(1994). From blobs to boundary edges: Evidence for time- and spatial-scale-dependent scene recognition. Psychological Science, 5, 195–200.

26.

Schyns

P. G.

Oliva

(1999). Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations. Cognition, 69, 243–265.

27.

Schyns

P. G.

Petro

Smith

M. L.

(2007). Dynamics of visual information integration in the brain to categorize facial expressions. Current Biology, 17, 1580–1585.

28.

Schyns

P. G.

Petro

Smith

M. L.

(2009). Transmission of facial expressions co-evolved with their efficient decoding in the brain: Behavioral and brain evidence. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5625. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005625

29.

Sekuler

A. B.

Gaspar

C. M.

Gold

J. M.

Bennett

P. J.

(2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14, 391–396.

30.

Sergent

(1984). An investigation into component and configurational processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221–242.

31.

Simoncelli

E. P.

(1997). Image and multi-scale pyramid tools [Computer software]. Retrieved from www.cns.nyu.edu/~eero/software.html

32.

Tanaka

J. W.

Farah

M. J.

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

33.

Taschereau-Dumouchel

Rossion

Schyns

P. G.

Gosselin

(2010). Interattribute distances do not represent the identity of real-world faces. Frontiers in Perception Science, 1. Retrieved from http://www.frontiersin.org/perception_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00159/full

34.

van Rijsbergen

N. J.

Schyns

P. G.

(2010). Dynamics of trimming the content of face representations for categorization in the brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(11), e1000561. Retrieved from http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000561

35.

Watson

A. B.

Pelli

D. G.

(1983). QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 113–120.

36.

Yarbus

A. L.

(1967). Eye movements and vision ( Haigh

, Trans.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

2.17 MB

0.00 MB