View in EDS

From face processing to face recognition: Comparing three different processing levels.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From face processing to face recognition: Comparing three different processing levels.
Authors: Besson, G.1,2,3 gabriel.besson@ulg.ac.be, Barragan-Jason, G.1,2 gladou86@gmail.com, Thorpe, S.J.1,2 simon.thorpe@cerco.ups-tlse.fr, Fabre-Thorpe, M.1,2 michele.fabre-thorpe@cerco.ups-tlse.fr, Puma, S.1,2 sebastien.puma@univ-tlse2.fr, Ceccaldi, M.3,4 mathieu-pierre.ceccaldi@ap-hm.fr, Barbeau, E.J.1,2 emmanuel.barbeau@cerco.ups-tlse.fr
Source: Cognition. Jan2017, Vol. 158, p33-43. 11p.
Subject Terms: *Reasoning, Face perception, Paradigms (Social sciences), Hypothesis, Paradigm (Theory of knowledge), Reaction time, Recognition (Psychology), Time
Abstract: Verifying that a face is from a target person (e.g. finding someone in the crowd) is a critical ability of the human face processing system. Yet how fast this can be performed is unknown. The 'entry-level shift due to expertise' hypothesis suggests that - since humans are face experts - processing faces should be as fast - or even faster - at the individual than at superordinate levels. In contrast, the 'superordinate advantage' hypothesis suggests that faces are processed from coarse to fine, so that the opposite pattern should be observed. To clarify this debate, three different face processing levels were compared: (1) a superordinate face categorization level (i.e. detecting human faces among animal faces), (2) a face familiarity level (i.e. recognizing famous faces among unfamiliar ones) and (3) verifying that a face is from a target person, our condition of interest. The minimal speed at which faces can be categorized (∼260ms) or recognized as familiar (∼360ms) has largely been documented in previous studies, and thus provides boundaries to compare our condition of interest to. Twenty-seven participants were included. The recent Speed and Accuracy Boosting procedure paradigm (SAB) was used since it constrains participants to use their fastest strategy. Stimuli were presented either upright or inverted. Results revealed that verifying that a face is from a target person (minimal RT at ∼260ms) was remarkably fast but longer than the face categorization level (∼240ms) and was more sensitive to face inversion. In contrast, it was much faster than recognizing a face as familiar (∼380ms), a level severely affected by face inversion. Face recognition corresponding to finding a specific person in a crowd thus appears achievable in only a quarter of a second. In favor of the 'superordinate advantage' hypothesis or coarse-to-fine account of the face visual hierarchy, these results suggest a graded engagement of the face processing system across processing levels as reflected by the face inversion effects. Furthermore, they underline how verifying that a face is from a target person and detecting a face as familiar - both often referred to as "Face Recognition" - in fact differs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Cognition is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 119581990
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From face processing to face recognition: Comparing three different processing levels.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Besson%2C+G%2E%22">Besson, G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo><i> gabriel.besson@ulg.ac.be</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barragan-Jason%2C+G%2E%22">Barragan-Jason, G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> gladou86@gmail.com</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thorpe%2C+S%2EJ%2E%22">Thorpe, S.J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> simon.thorpe@cerco.ups-tlse.fr</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fabre-Thorpe%2C+M%2E%22">Fabre-Thorpe, M.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> michele.fabre-thorpe@cerco.ups-tlse.fr</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Puma%2C+S%2E%22">Puma, S.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> sebastien.puma@univ-tlse2.fr</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ceccaldi%2C+M%2E%22">Ceccaldi, M.</searchLink><relatesTo>3,4</relatesTo><i> mathieu-pierre.ceccaldi@ap-hm.fr</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barbeau%2C+E%2EJ%2E%22">Barbeau, E.J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> emmanuel.barbeau@cerco.ups-tlse.fr</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Cognition%22">Cognition</searchLink>. Jan2017, Vol. 158, p33-43. 11p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reasoning%22">Reasoning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Face+perception%22">Face perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Paradigms+%28Social+sciences%29%22">Paradigms (Social sciences)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hypothesis%22">Hypothesis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Paradigm+%28Theory+of+knowledge%29%22">Paradigm (Theory of knowledge)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reaction+time%22">Reaction time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recognition+%28Psychology%29%22">Recognition (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time%22">Time</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Verifying that a face is from a target person (e.g. finding someone in the crowd) is a critical ability of the human face processing system. Yet how fast this can be performed is unknown. The 'entry-level shift due to expertise' hypothesis suggests that - since humans are face experts - processing faces should be as fast - or even faster - at the individual than at superordinate levels. In contrast, the 'superordinate advantage' hypothesis suggests that faces are processed from coarse to fine, so that the opposite pattern should be observed. To clarify this debate, three different face processing levels were compared: (1) a superordinate face categorization level (i.e. detecting human faces among animal faces), (2) a face familiarity level (i.e. recognizing famous faces among unfamiliar ones) and (3) verifying that a face is from a target person, our condition of interest. The minimal speed at which faces can be categorized (∼260ms) or recognized as familiar (∼360ms) has largely been documented in previous studies, and thus provides boundaries to compare our condition of interest to. Twenty-seven participants were included. The recent Speed and Accuracy Boosting procedure paradigm (SAB) was used since it constrains participants to use their fastest strategy. Stimuli were presented either upright or inverted. Results revealed that verifying that a face is from a target person (minimal RT at ∼260ms) was remarkably fast but longer than the face categorization level (∼240ms) and was more sensitive to face inversion. In contrast, it was much faster than recognizing a face as familiar (∼380ms), a level severely affected by face inversion. Face recognition corresponding to finding a specific person in a crowd thus appears achievable in only a quarter of a second. In favor of the 'superordinate advantage' hypothesis or coarse-to-fine account of the face visual hierarchy, these results suggest a graded engagement of the face processing system across processing levels as reflected by the face inversion effects. Furthermore, they underline how verifying that a face is from a target person and detecting a face as familiar - both often referred to as "Face Recognition" - in fact differs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Cognition is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=119581990
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.004
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 33
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reasoning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Face perception
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Paradigms (Social sciences)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hypothesis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Paradigm (Theory of knowledge)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reaction time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recognition (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From face processing to face recognition: Comparing three different processing levels.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Besson, G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barragan-Jason, G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thorpe, S.J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fabre-Thorpe, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Puma, S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ceccaldi, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barbeau, E.J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Text: Jan2017
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00100277
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 158
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cognition
              Type: main
ResultId 1