Academic literature on the topic 'Face processing, Individual differences, Face recognition ability'

Numerous studies have reported impairments in perception and recognition, and, particularly, in part-integration of faces following picture-plane inversion. Whether these findings support the notion that inversion changes face processing qualitatively remains a topic of debate. To examine whether associations and dissociations of the human face processing ability depend on stimulus orientation, we measured face recognition with the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT), along with experimental tests of face perception and selective attention to faces and non-face objects in a sample of 314 participants. Results showed strong inversion effects for all face-related tasks, and modest ones for non-face objects. Individual differences analysis revealed that the CFMT shared common variance with face perception and face-selective attention, however, independent of orientation. Regardless of whether predictor and criterion had same or different orientation, face recognition was best predicted by the same test battery. Principal component decomposition revealed a common factor for face recognition and face perception, a second common factor for face recognition and face-selective attention, and two unique factors. The patterns of factor loadings were nearly identical for upright and inverted presentation. These results indicate orientation-invariance of common variance in three domains of face processing. Since inversion impaired performance, but did not affect domain-related associations and dissociations, the findings suggest process-specific but orientation-general mechanisms. Specific limitations by constraints of individual differences analysis and test selection are discussed.

Regions of the occipital and temporal lobes, including a region in the fusiform gyrus (FG), have been proposed to constitute a “core” visual representation system for faces, in part because they show face selectivity and face repetition suppression. But recent fMRI studies of developmental prosopagnosics (DPs) raise questions about whether these measures relate to face processing skills. Although DPs manifest deficient face processing, most studies to date have not shown unequivocal reductions of functional responses in the proposed core regions. We scanned 15 DPs and 15 non-DP control participants with fMRI while employing factor analysis to derive behavioral components related to face identification or other processes. Repetition suppression specific to facial identities in FG or to expression in FG and STS did not show compelling relationships with face identification ability. However, we identified robust relationships between face selectivity and face identification ability in FG across our sample for several convergent measures, including voxel-wise statistical parametric mapping, peak face selectivity in individually defined “fusiform face areas” (FFAs), and anatomical extents (cluster sizes) of those FFAs. None of these measures showed associations with behavioral expression or object recognition ability. As a group, DPs had reduced face-selective responses in bilateral FFA when compared with non-DPs. Individual DPs were also more likely than non-DPs to lack expected face-selective activity in core regions. These findings associate individual differences in face processing ability with selectivity in core face processing regions. This confirms that face selectivity can provide a valid marker for neural mechanisms that contribute to face identification ability.

BackgroundDeficits in face emotion recognition (FER) in schizophrenia are well documented, and have been proposed as a potential intermediate phenotype for schizophrenia liability. However, research on the relationship between psychosis vulnerability and FER has mixed findings and methodological limitations. Moreover, no study has yet characterized the relationship between FER ability and level of psychosis-proneness. If FER ability varies continuously with psychosis-proneness, this suggests a relationship between FER and polygenic risk factors.MethodWe tested two large internet samples to see whether psychometric psychosis-proneness, as measured by the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B), is related to differences in face emotion identification and discrimination or other face processing abilities.ResultsExperiment 1 (n=2332) showed that psychosis-proneness predicts face emotion identification ability but not face gender identification ability. Experiment 2 (n=1514) demonstrated that psychosis-proneness also predicts performance on face emotion but not face identity discrimination. The tasks in Experiment 2 used identical stimuli and task parameters, differing only in emotion/identity judgment. Notably, the relationships demonstrated in Experiments 1 and 2 persisted even when individuals with the highest psychosis-proneness levels (the putative high-risk group) were excluded from analysis.ConclusionsOur data suggest that FER ability is related to individual differences in psychosis-like characteristics in the normal population, and that these differences cannot be accounted for by differences in face processing and/or visual perception. Our results suggest that FER may provide a useful candidate intermediate phenotype.

Understanding how individual identity is processed from faces remains a complex problem. Contrast reversal, showing faces in photographic negative, impairs face recognition in humans and demonstrates the importance of surface-based information (shading and pigmentation) in face recognition. We tested the importance of contrast information for face encoding in chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys using a computerized face-matching task. Results showed that contrast reversal (positive to negative) selectively impaired face processing in these two species, although the impairment was greater for chimpanzees. Unlike chimpanzees, however, monkeys performed just as well matching negative to positive faces, suggesting that they retained some ability to extract identity information from negative faces. A control task showed that chimpanzees, but not rhesus monkeys, performed significantly better matching face parts compared with whole faces after a contrast reversal, suggesting that contrast reversal acts selectively on face processing, rather than general visual-processing mechanisms. These results confirm the importance of surface-based cues for face processing in chimpanzees and humans, while the results were less salient for rhesus monkeys. These findings make a significant contribution to understanding the evolution of cognitive specializations for face processing among primates, and suggest potential differences between monkeys and apes.

Boundary extension is a common false memory error, in which people confidently remember seeing a wider angle view of the scene than was viewed. Previous research found that boundary extension is scene-specific and did not examine this phenomenon in nonscenes. The present research explored boundary extension in cropped face images. Participants completed either a short-term or a long-term condition of the task. During the encoding, they observed photographs of faces, cropped either in a forehead or in a chin area, and subsequently performed face recognition through a forced-choice selection. The recognition options represented different degrees of boundary extension and boundary restriction errors. Eye-tracking and performance data were collected. The results demonstrated boundary extension in both memory conditions. Furthermore, previous literature reported the asymmetry in amounts of expansion at different sides of an image. The present work provides the evidence of asymmetry in boundary extension. In the short-term condition, boundary extension errors were more pronounced for forehead, than for chin face areas. Finally, this research examined the relationships between the measures of boundary extension, imagery, and emotion. The results suggest that individual differences in emotional ability and object, but not spatial, imagery could be associated with boundary extension in face processing.

AbstractObjectives: The extended face network contains clusters of neurons that perform distinct functions on facial stimuli. Regions in the posterior ventral visual stream appear to perform basic perceptual functions on faces, while more anterior regions, such as the ventral anterior temporal lobe and amygdala, function to link mnemonic and affective information to faces. Anterior and posterior regions are interconnected by a long-range white matter tracts; however, it is not known if variation in connectivity of these pathways explains cognitive performance. Methods: Here, we used diffusion imaging and deterministic tractography in a cohort of 28 neurologically normal adults ages 18–28 to examine microstructural properties of visual fiber pathways and their relationship to certain mnemonic and affective functions involved in face processing. We investigated how inter-individual variability in two tracts, the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF) and the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF), related to performance on tests of facial emotion recognition and face memory. Results: Results revealed that microstructure of both tracts predicted variability in behavioral performance indexed by both tasks, suggesting that the ILF and IFOF play a role in facilitating our ability to discriminate emotional expressions in faces, as well as to remember unique faces. Variation in a control tract, the uncinate fasciculus, did not predict performance on these tasks. Conclusions: These results corroborate and extend the findings of previous neuropsychology studies investigating the effects of damage to the ILF and IFOF, and demonstrate that differences in face processing abilities are related to white matter microstructure, even in healthy individuals. (JINS, 2016, 22, 180–190)

The ability to recognize faces is an important socio-cognitive skill that is associated with a number of cognitive specializations in humans. While numerous studies have examined the presence of these specializations in non-human primates, species where face recognition would confer distinct advantages in social situations, results have been mixed. The majority of studies in chimpanzees support homologous face-processing mechanisms with humans, but results from monkey studies appear largely dependent on the type of testing methods used. Studies that employ passive viewing paradigms, like the visual paired comparison task, report evidence of similarities between monkeys and humans, but tasks that use more stringent, operant response tasks, like the matching-to-sample task, often report species differences. Moreover, the data suggest that monkeys may be less sensitive than chimpanzees and humans to the precise spacing of facial features, in addition to the surface-based cues reflected in those features, information that is critical for the representation of individual identity. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the available data from face-processing tasks in non-human primates with the goal of understanding the evolution of this complex cognitive skill.

Many important questions remain unanswered regarding how we recognize faces. Methodological inconsistencies have contributed to confusion regarding these questions, especially those surrounding three purported face processing mechanisms—featural, configural, and holistic—and the extent to which each play a role in face recognition. The work presented here aims to 1) empirically test the assumption that several face recognition tasks index the same underlying construct(s), and 2) contribute data to a number of ongoing debates concerning the reliability and validity of various methods for assessing integrative (i.e., holistic and/or configural) aspects of face processing. Experiment 1 tested the assumption that various tasks purporting to measure integrative face processing index the same construct(s). It is important to test this assumption because if these tasks are in fact measuring different things, then researchers should cease interpreting them as interchangeable measures. Using a within-subjects design (N = 223) we compared performance—as reflected by accuracy and reaction time measures, as well as two types of difference scores—across four of the most commonly used integrative face processing tasks: The Partial Composite Face Effect Task, the Face Inversion Effect Task, the Part Whole Effect Task, and the Configural/Featural Difference Detection Task. Analyses showed that within-task correlations were much stronger than those between-tasks. This suggests that the four conditions within each task are measuring something in common; In contrast, low correlations across tasks suggest that each is measuring something unique. This in turn suggests these tasks should not be seen as assessing the same integrative face-processing construct. Exploratory factor analyses corroborated the correlation data, finding that performance on most conditions loaded onto a single factor in unrotated solutions, but onto separate factors in direct oblimin-rotated solutions. In Experiment 2, we investigated the question of whether integrative face processing performance is related to face recognition ability. We did this by assessing the degree to which results from four widely-used integrative face processing tasks correlate with a measure of general face recognition ability, The Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). The four integrative processing tasks used in this study only partly overlapped those from in Experiment 1. They were: The Complete Composite Face Effect Task, the Partial Composite Face Effect Task, the Part Whole Effect Task, and the Configural/Featural Difference Detection Task. As with Experiment 1, we used a within-subjects design (N = 260) and analyzed a variety of performance variables across these tasks. Analyses demonstrated low to moderate positive correlations between performance on the task conditions and performance on the CFMT. This suggests that the constructs the tasks reflect do contribute to face recognition ability to a modest degree. These analyses also replicated parts of Experiment 1, showing weak correlations between tasks. Also similar to Experiment 1, factor analyses generally revealed task conditions loading onto a common first factor in the unrotated factor matrix, but loading separately in the rotated factor solution. In addition to providing evidence regarding the nature of integrative face processing tasks, the data presented here speak to a number of other questions in this domain. For instance, they contribute to the debate regarding which kinds of difference scores (subtraction-based or regression-based) are more reliable, as well as the reliability of the various tasks used to investigate integrative face processing. In addition, the data inform the debate over whether the Complete or the Partial version of the Composite Face Effect Task is the superior measure of integrative face processing. In summary, the studies presented here indicate that the previous literature in face recognition needs to be interpreted with care, with an eye to differences in methodology and the problems of low measurement reliability. The various methods used to investigate integrative face processing are not assessing the same thing and cannot be taken as reflecting the same underlying construct.

This item is only available in print in the UCF Libraries. If this is your Honors Thesis, you can help us make it available online for use by researchers around the world by following the instructions on the distribution consent form at http://library.ucf.edu/Systems/DigitalInitiatives/DigitalCollections/InternetDistributionConsentAgreementForm.pdf You may also contact the project coordinator, Kerri Bottorff, at kerri.bottorff@ucf.edu for more information.
Bachelors
Sciences
Psychology

Increasing evidence suggests vast individual differences in face-matching performance in both lay perceivers and relevant professionals. However, the field is hampered by a paucity of psychometric-standard assessment tasks. This chapter reviews the current evidence supporting individual differences in face matching, in light of the reliability of the available tools. The potential underpinnings of these individual differences are reviewed, alongside the overlap between different continua of face-processing skills. Given that so-called super-recognizers may offer a powerful security tool in relevant settings, the identification and deployment of these individuals are critically discussed. In particular, the reliability and appropriateness of current terminology and assessment tools are considered, together with potential limitations in the performance of even the strongest face matchers. While the current conceptualization of super-recognition can no doubt advance academic theory, this approach may not adequately identify the best individuals for real-world forensic face-matching tasks.