Global and local processing in memory recollection task: Associating face recognition withtrait attribution - Essay Example

?Global and local processing in memory recollection task: Associating face recognition with trait attribution Introduction Global processing is basically about processing an image holistically. It is dominated by global precedence with an individual identifying features based on global, not local, elements. In general, global precedence is used over local parameters, however, for certain individuals, they may be more inclined to consider local features (Davidoff and Fagot, 2008). Global processing considers the global whole to be a conglomeration of similar elements. In effect, facial recognition is based on a holistic and global precedence. On the other hand, local processing utilizes specific featural qualities, or more specific parameters in order to establish face recognition. With these differences in processing, the general facial recognition may enter variations and inflections specific to each individual and face. This study shall discuss how people process global or local information in their memory in relation to recognition of face with their occupation. It shall focus on global processing and the neurological basis behind the processing and why it might be valuable to process in this way. Discussion The human face is a rich and complicated image and is made up of various traits and nuances – internally and externally. It is also a generally accepted fact that particular faces and features are discriminated and qualified as local features. The basis of configuration has gained much focus in studies on face-processing. When individual facial discrimination and recognition is evaluated, various researchers acknowledge that facial configuration takes at least two forms (Maurer, et.al., 2002). The first form is related to metric measurements between the facial features. In these cases, the interocular distance or the nose-mouth distance is considered (Maurer, et.al., 2002). The second form integrates the qualities into a gestalt or the holistic representation. In metric distances, facial qualities can be manipulated; the holistic notion on the other hand, specifies a means of qualifying and recognizing the facial stimulus (Goffaux and Rossion, 2006). Sir Francis Galton first recognized the idea that a facial stimulus is often recognized in its entirety, with a single glance, not as a specific collection of individual features. This idea has also been supported by other experts, including Young, Hellawell, and Hay (Goffaux and Rossion, 2006). Some of the conflict and confusion between holistic face recognition and the power to assess metric differences is based on the fact that when the face is presented upside down, the evaluation is significantly changed (Maurer, LeGrand and Mondloch, 2002). Furthermore, the holistic face recognition must also consider the local elements, as well as metric measurements. However, the two forms can be distinguished from each other based on their vulnerability to experimental manoeuvrings and their overall development. For example, studies indicate that children evaluate and process faces as a whole, same as their adult counterparts (Pellicano and Rhodes, 2003). These children are however not as effective as adults in processing the differences in faces based on spacing in the facial features. In holistic processing, facial features are taken as a whole and are integrated with each other, rather than evaluated one item at a time. In this case, recalling the face is impacted by the evaluation of the other parts or features of the face (Young, Hellawell, and Hay, 1987). Young, Hellawell, and Hay (1987) established a composite feature by combining the top half of a familiar face and the bottom half of yet another familiar face. Their research revealed that the viewers were not as fast in identifying the top half when both parts were aligned with each other; they had an easier time recognizing the face when both parts were not aligned with each other. Slower times in identifying the face was also seen in the identification of the bottom parts; however the time lost was not as much as in the top half (Endo, Masame, and Maruyama, 1989). These points support the fact that facial features are conceptualized as a holistic evaluation. The advantage seen in evaluating features integrated in whole faces is likened to their presentation apart from such whole; this represents another strong influence by facial gestalt on the assessment of features (Davidoff and Donnelly, 1990). An assessment by Tanaka and Farah (1993) sought to train individuals to identify a line-up of upright faces. Their study revealed that participants to the study were able to identify facial features better when these were integrated in the whole face. This process has also been established in similar activities with unfamiliar elements, further providing support the notion that face recollection takes place at a perceptual stage (Wenger and Ingvalson, 2002). Under the two forms or notions of facial recollection, recognizing a portion of the face is impacted by other parts. For the composite face model, recognizing the target face half is interrupted because the other part which is not important for the task differs in general across test composites. On the whole, recognizing a facial feature is managed when presented within the same facial context during the recollection stages (Leder and Carbon, 2005). The overall impact on part perception may be positive or negative under both models. Leder and Carbon (2003) discussed that the whole-part effect may manifest as unfavourable for the overall condition if the encoding stimulus is an isolated part of the whole face. Whether the part is shown as a facilitation effect or and inhibition effect, the overall picture is that the acknowledgement of a facial part is impacted by other facial parts (Leder and Carbon, 2003). Even as the two effects generate the impact of holistic facial processing, the assessment of the subjects with single parts within the models manifest that individual elements can be presented as they are by the visual system. The effects strongly indicate that the overall representation of a face is drawn during the perceived encoding of the information, not at the time when a decision is being made about the facial feature (Farah, et.al., 1998). This would raise the issue of the visual data where a holistic facial feature is built and how it can impact on the evaluation of facial features. The fact that faces are evaluated holistically is what makes faces unique. Face perception is based on the holistic evaluation, not so much on object perception in order to ensure sensitivity to configural data (Farah, et.al., 1998). Much research is based on the validity by which holistic processing is assessed, but also on the assumption that overall processing is important in understanding facial processing (Farah, et.al., 1998). Although there are differences in the two-face processing tasks used, individual differences in face matching and identification were more or less related to the holistic processing. In a person’s daily visual perceptions, faces as well as objects and other images are stored in one’s cluttered brain and later often appear in a more degraded fashion because of cast shadows, distance, and other occlusions. These visual perceptions call for faces to initially manifest at a poorer resolution (Loftus and Harley, 2005). Such a haphazard representation is enough to assist the evaluation of faces, as well as objects, and to support ocular foveation in the evaluation of other specific cues (Lewis and Edmonds, 2003). The idea that holistic facial representations can be based on low-resolution face pictures also implies that holistic assessments may assist in detecting the face stimulus by associating the internal and external features with each other against a background (Lewis and Edmonds, 2003). The power to evaluate faces holistically may be crucial for the evaluation of a specific 3D representation, based on the neuropsychosocial and development studies on facial recollections. In essence, authors Sergent and Villemure (1989) were able to establish that a brain damaged patient whose face recognition ability was affected, often also present with issues in recognizing faces alongside viewpoint changes. These patients also present with impairments in processing face at low spatial frequency, alongside the inability to evaluate faces holistically (Sergent and Villemure, 1989). Developmental studies also declare that a person’s inability to evaluate faces holistically from a low spatial frequency is often related to an impaired ability to derive facial features from a three-dimensional angle. Because of compromised visual accuracy and contrast sensitivity at birth, the stimulus to the ocular system in the first few months of life is limited to low spatial frequency data (Maurer and Lewis, 2001). Babies born with both eyes having cataracts are often deprived of this input and likely manifest with permanent visual defects even when the cataracts are eliminated within two months following their birth. Studies have indicated that these patients evaluated during their adult years manifest in the normal ranges in matching local features, however, they do not evaluate faces holistically in the composite model (Le Grand, et.al., 2004). Such a detail implies that early low spatial frequency input is important in the adequate development of holistic processing. These same patients also manifest impairments in matching individual faces from a variety of viewpoints, even with normal performance in eye gaze and facial expression processing, including lip reading (Geldart, et.al., 2002). All in all, such data indicates the importance of a person’s ability to draw out crude holistic facial representations to evaluate a three-dimensional structure. Richler, et.al., (2009) discusses that faces are evaluated holistically. When individuals evaluate whether parts of a pair of composite faces are similar or different, holistic processing is often used based on the failure to specifically consider one part of the face away from the others. In effect, whether or not the unimportant part of the face is similar or different impacts how individuals are able to perceive whether the relevant part is also similar or different (Richler, et.al., 2009). Richler and colleagues (2009) were able to carry out an initial attempt towards systematically assessing how the perceived encoding of time affects the holistic processing of faces. Holistic processing of faces usually occurs at first glance. The study by Richler and colleagues (2009) indicated that holistic effects are seen at rapid exposure durations; and they do not seem to be a product of attentional resources from the attended to the unattended part which would often be seen after additional observation time is gained. Holistic impact is also not higher with rapid exposure durations, as may be seen under global dominance (Kimchi, 1998). It is very apparent that holistic impacts are clear when faces are only presented momentarily, and they do not need to wait for a thorough encoding to happen. Holistic effects are not overly large, especially when presentation time given is short; they are also not attenuated when there is more time given to evaluate the face (Hole, 1994). Failures seen in selective attention with faces do not come from the same mechanisms which can often minimize selective attention in novice object perceptions (Richler, et.al., 2009). The composite facial impact when studied among respondent Caucasians and Asians had a heavier impact. This confirms the idea that same race faces (SR) are seen holistically as compared to other race faces (OR). The overall idea of holistic processing of faces is that the spatial relationship is quickly drawn from the overall visual stimulus through previously known facial representations (Maurer, et.al., 2002). The study findings by Michel, et.al., (2006) declare that representations of holistic facial perceptions are already defined. These representations are focused enough so that holistic processing has more value for the faces with which one already has previous experience – same race faces. Individuals in various racial groupings recall that other races all look alike and the ability to distinguish among same race faces has been apparent in various studies, and outside different races (Bothwell, et.al., 1989). Other researchers have declared that a face is evaluated more as a unit – a Gestalt representation, and this seems to have gained much support from other researchers. In association with current findings, Rhodes and his colleagues (1989) also suggested that the other race effect (ORE) recognition is caused by inefficient holistic encoding for same race faces and other race faces. Under the holistic paradigm, subjects are often instructed on the part or parts of the image to encode, and they may choose based on single features or several features (Michel, et.al., 2006). In the study by (Michel, et.al., 2006) the same race (SR) and other race (OR) faces reactions was evaluated; the respondents were asked to focus on a part of the face and the impact of such chosen part was interrupted when two parts were then aligned. In manifesting that the impact of alignment is more significant for SR than OR faces, the authors were able to establish that SR faces are evaluated holistically as compared to OR faces; and this is more likely due to previous visual experiences (Michel, et.al., 2006). The degree of visual experience with OR faces is considered a crucial element in the ability to identify them (Brigham 1986). In some regards also, the quantity, not the quality of the encoding seems to have a bigger impact on facial recollection. Other studies have also supported the notion that the ORE which is seen from as early as one’s toddler years, can be reversed after experiences with other races and faces (Sangrigoli, et.al., 2005). These studies are related to the impact of visual experiences which fashion holistic processing. With time, holistic processing of faces gains better quality and reaches more mature levels. It has been acknowledged however that visual experiences before six months of age is needed for the normal development of holistic processing (Le Grand, et.al., 2004). The impact of visual experience in holistic processing is often also supported by the performance of adults confronted with nonface objects. Among adults, the facial processing is more holistic (Tanaka and Farah, 1993). Visual expertise however enhances holistic processing with nonface objects, as supported by studies which utilise composite paradigms (Gauthier, et.al., 2003). The potential relationships of the ORE, the visual experience, and the holistic processing are also supported by neuroimaging studies which indicate that a portion of the middle fusiform gyrus which activates well to faces is even more activated when matching facial composites and in responding to SR faces (Kanwisher, et.al., 1997). Since holistic processing is seen to some degree in OR faces, the study by Michel, et.al., (2006) suggests that for adults, a thorough visual recognition with OR faces must lead to an improvement in holistic processing and to a better processing of these faces. There were however no observed relationships between the holistic processing for SR and OR faces and the other race impact in the respondents. The relationship between the differential holistic processing and the other race face impact is therefore not wholly settled (Michel, et.al., 2006). The absence of any apparent impact must not be taken lightly because the data still suggests that the differential holistic evaluation between SR and OR faces may be one of the elements impacting on the other race effect. In effect, it may be understood that nonconfigural elements are also more adequately drawn from SR not from OR faces, which may explain why the results indicate that Caucasian respondents find it easier to match top parts of composite faces when the faces being compared are Caucasians (Michel, et.al. 2006). Moreover, holistic processing may be important but not ample to discriminate individual faces. The above points are apparent in developmental studies with children aged 5-6 who are poor at recognizing faces, even as they have already gained holistic processing abilities (Bruce, et.al., 2000). In instances where holistic processing is needed but not enough to qualify a person to facial expert status, individuals must need less experience to evaluate OR faces holistically. Studies will therefore be needed to evaluate the relationship between differential holistic processing or SR and OR faces and the other race effect. Some researchers argue that the other race effect is based on an early qualification of race which is often made at the expense of individual qualities (Levin, 2000). Under this racial grouping and qualification, after a race is qualified into an individual racial population it is not anymore processed under any other individual level. Michel and colleagues (2006) were able to establish that the other race effect is based on a failure to process other race faces and that the other race effect is also caused by an early categorization made on a race or a facial feature. Michel, et.al., (2006) were able to establish that Asians process faces more holistically as compared to their Caucasian counterparts. Elements which include greater exposure to Caucasian faces in the media and movies may impact on this scenario which allows them to process Caucasian faces, as well as Asian faces holistically (Michel, et.al., 2006). Traits Studies also seem to indicate that assessing the inferred character of a face, including its likeability often leads to an improved recognition of the face; in contrast to judgments made about a physical feature (Coin and Tieberghien, 1997). Some authors were also able to establish that when words were recalled semantically, their recollection was better as compared to when they were processed based on physical qualities. Bower and Karlin (1974) translated this theory to the memory for faces. They were able to show that memory for faces are better after deep encoding than superficial encoding. They further discuss that when the level of processing increases, more associations with the target are established in the memory (Bower and Karlin, 1974). This contention was however challenged by various authors, as was also mentioned within this text with other experts declaring that it is not the quantity of interaction which matters the most, but the kind of data encoded. In fact these authors were able to cite that when individuals were asked which facial features were most distinct, their recognition of facial features placed as high as the personality attached to each face (Blaney and Winograd, 1978). Recognizing a person therefore is often based on superficial traits first, and this process of recognition takes a shorter time for consideration. This is in sharp contrast to the recall of faces through personality traits which often require a longer period of introspection on the part of the observer (Coin and Tiberghien, 1997). Neurological Basis for Processing Heinze, et.al., (1998) discuss that for global processing, the activation in the posterior brain is focused on the left inferior occipital gurus and left and right fusiform gyri. Other activations were also seen at the left motor cortex, the thalamus, and the anterior cingulated gyrus. Similar pictures were seen in the local processing, however the activation apparent in the right fusiform gyrus was not as significant (Heinze, et.al., 1998). In order to establish whether this effect had any significance in the facial recollection, the average activation was calculated. Results gained indicated no significant difference in the responses. Neurological tests also indicated that global processing targets manifested higher temporal-occipital P1 components (90- to 150-msec latency) as compared to local processing targets where the P1 was lower (Heinze, et.al., 1998). Under local attention, the focus is drawn down to the size of the local stimulus, in effect, barring the information at the global level (Heinze, et.al., 1998). In the divided-attention task for respondents, the effect of interference was seen with a similar magnitude in both directions. This pattern highlights the notion that global and local assessment can be seen parallel to each other when the respondents’ attention is divided (Heinze and Munte, 1993). Based on Lamb and Robertson (1989), the symmetrical impact of focused detection suggests that mediating elements may be separating the various mechanisms of recollection. Such mechanisms may include varying categorical attention elements for global and local stimuli within the same visual space (Hughes, et.al., 1990). The earliest cue of differential processing of global versus local elements was seen in the selective attention task. Amplitude modulation in the posterior P1 element was higher when attention was focused globally (Heinze, et.al., 1998). No differences were seen in the N2 (negative polarity ERP component) for selective attention to global compared with local targets. In effect, at selective attention, the P1 element was significantly related to differences in global versus local assessment (Heinze, et.al., 1998). Since the P1 amplitude was shifted in the selective condition, this supports the notion that spatial attention is involved in mediating visual analysis during selective global and local facial processing (Robertson, et.al., 1993). This can be seen with a large number of studies which have indicated that the modification of the P1 amplitude during visual selective attention activities supports selection based on spatial location; on the other hand, shifts in subsequent elements also reflect selection based on other features (Heinze, et.al., 1998). In evaluating data, the impact of the P1 element has been manifested to vary in terms of its function and size of the spatial region, including the types of resources seen in this area (Mangun and Hillyard, 1990). Different symmetries in hemispheres for the global and the local processing were seen in neurological studies, especially when focus was divided between the global and local levels (Heinze, et.al., 1998). An interpretation for these results has been forwarded and basically posits that global and local processing is based on hemispheric asymmetries which are based on spatial frequency for the stimuli. During divided-attention instances, the wide range of sizes in the spatial frequencies when assessed revealed that two hemispheres allocate processing in order to ensure processing efficiency. On the other hand, in selective attention to local or global levels, reassessing hemispheric processing through spatial frequencies reduced overall hemispheric differences for each level (Heinze, et.al., 1998). Overall, these differences in neural imaging indicate the differences in processing for both global and local facial recollection. Under these conditions, the processing has a neural affinity to each other which border on similar overall effects, but also differ in the overall impact. Explanation of global holistic processing Various studies have been carried out assessing the utilization of the Navon stimuli to evaluate global and local processing. These studies have sought to evaluate whether there is a basis for the concept of global processing first then local processing next (Lawson, 2007). In contrast to objects, faces often trigger holistic processing (Tanaka and Farah, 1993). The various features or parts of the face are evaluated into a gestalt which then allows individuals to see the face in its entirety, in effect, eliminating the ability to gain data about specific features (Maurer, et.al., 2002). In the composite effect, a strong demonstration of the holistic processing is sufficiently seen. Adults often also find it hard to identify the top half a celebrity’s face when it is grouped with the bottom half of another face (Young, et.al., 1987). There seems to be a holistic evaluation which supports the two halves of the face and later creates a whole face which often makes it difficult for a person to recognize the top half even when they are told to ignore the unimportant bottom half. In general however, after manipulations which interfere with holistic evaluation are carried out, adults often perform better (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). Moreover, adults also recognize features based on an individual’s face easily when the context of the entire face is considered. Such results indicate that facial features are not just individual representations, however, they are also qualified into an overall representation which interrupts access to individual feature representations. Initial elements of holistic processing already occur in as early as four months of age, holistic processing however seems to be more attuned to a childhood evaluation of human faces (Cashon and Cohen, 2004). Both the composite face effect and the whole/part effect do not work well for inverted faces. The whole and the part advantage is not seen for unfamiliar objects; but both effects are stronger in own-race than other-race faces, except where the subject has already been immersed for more than a year among individuals of the other race (Michel, et.al., 2006). Therefore, as in expert facial recognition, holistic processing is more significant for types of faces where the observed party has had full exposure to. The impact of experience is also apparent in studies of patients who were not given early visual experience due to congenital cataracts. Being blind during the first few weeks of life does not allow for the usual patterns of holistic processing development (LeGrand, et.al., 2004). When assessed for the impact of the composite face effect at 15 years of age, the respondents did not show an ability to carry out holistic processing; however they were faster in identifying top halves; but did not fare any better when halves were misaligned. Through this assessment, respondents demonstrated how their processing of faces is not in a holistic manner (LeGrand, et.al., 2004). Early visual immersion is therefore important in ensuring the neural development which allows normal holistic processing. Children often do not reach adult expertise in facial recognition until their reach their adolescent years (Carey, et.al., 1980). Studies also seem to indicate that children as young as 4 years actually manifest the whole/part advantage without any changes in these trends until they reach the age of ten. Children evaluated were more able to pick out faces they previously encountered from a line-up where features have been changed; they were not adept at identifying between isolated parts. However, the whole/part impact may indicate holistic processing based on a different pathway from the overall composite effect (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). In contrast to the composite face effect, researchers were also able to establish that the whole/part effect is seen even with objects for which the observer has not developed any affinity (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). This seems to demonstrate the overall finding of objects being recognized on the basis of where they are first learned or seen (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). For example a person’s eyes are easier to identify when considered in the context of the individual’s face. The whole/part impact is more apparent for upright faces than for upturned faces; however, this same impact is not seen in drawings of houses (Tanaka and Farah, 1993). Nevertheless, it is not apparent whether the whole/part processing measures the same elements of processing as composite face effects. Studies by Mondloch, et.al., (2006) were able to manifest that children often manifested holistic processing for faces after learning to identify the features easily; this represents a switch from feature-by-feature processing to global recollection apparent in adults learning to identify new objects (Gauthier and Tarr, 2002). Moreover, studies also indicate that familiar and unfamiliar features are often evaluated differently by adults. The composite face effect and the whole/part effect are both not applicable for faces where the adult is not familiar, especially for other race faces (Michel, et.al., 2004). Adults seem to apply more holistic processing for the faces of individuals already familiar to them. Adults therefore process familiar faces holistically, but for other race faces, they cannot seem to apply this same means of face recognition. In evaluating whether children apply holistic processes for faces they are unfamiliar with, researchers established the strength of composite face effect for six year old children. When faces are aligned with different top and bottom halves, children often did not perform well. This seems to indicate that in processing images holistically, these children also thought that the top halves were different even when the top halves were actually identical (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). These findings support the composite face effect which manifests that six year olds process unfamiliar faces holistically, and the impact of the composite face effect was similar to results seen in adults. These results are also supported by other similar studies which indicate how six year old children already show adult composite face effect tendencies where familiar faces are involved and show whole/part effects for familiar and unfamiliar faces (Tanaka, et.al., 1998). Improvements after the age of six in recognising upright faces are not caused by the increased impact of holistic face processing. The early development of holistic processing is not enough to gain adult dexterity, however, these stages of development are also necessary to gain full adult expertise (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). Holistic processing may support the development of sensitivity to specific cues to facial identity which may be subtle differences in metric measures. These are cues which have been identified as second-order relations (Maurer, et.al., 2002). When various versions of a face were created which was different in shape on the external contours, as well as the shape of other features and their spacing, the features created seemed to create adult like features when assessed by children. For adolescents, their errors in identification seemed to be apparent in spacing sets (Mondloch, et.al., 2002). Holistic evaluation may support the processing of second-order relations by easing the ability to compare the spacing in the features in an individual’s face and to differentiate the distinction across distances from where the face is actually viewed (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). Therefore holistic processing may be important, but not sufficient, in later acquiring expertise in facial recognition within the years of development and up to adult years. Studies indicate that at six years of age, adult like holistic processing skills are already in place, but mostly for own race faces (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). These studies also review the relationship between the impact of early visual experience and the rate of development. Visual skills which are affected by the striate visual cortex manifest a pattern which matches the Detroit principle – in any case skills which develop early are not impacted by visual deprivation and unbalanced competition between the eyes as compared to late developing skills (Mondloch, et.al., 2006). Studies indicate that face processing also fits the Detroit Model, wherein, skills which are adult-like at 6 years become normal with early visual reduction. For skills that are still improving after 10 years of age, holistic processing often becomes impaired. Conclusion Holistic processing is dominant in face recognition because a person is more likely to identify a face based on a holistic assessment, not a whole/part evaluation. The global holistic processing in face recognition is based on the wider context, not specific features in a face. However, when recalling facial composites, individuals often shift to the local processing where they concentrate on specific facial features. Among children, holistic processing develops early and they also apply adult-like capability in processing facial features. Adult-like dexterity in facial recognition is however not reached until they reach their adolescent years. Nevertheless, the development of their ability to identify faces holistically has to develop at an early age. Barring such development, their pathways to facial identification would be different, taking in a more local processing technique. In general also, face recognition by varying races is based on the more holistic process. Hence, it would not be out of place for individuals to declare that Americans to declare that Asians all look alike. Asians however are more likely to distinguish faces more, as compared to their American counterparts. The widespread visibility of Caucasians in the media may have a major role in this understanding. All in all, holistic processing of faces is a dominant tendency as presented in the discussion above; this is in sharp contrast to the more local processing application involved in object identification. A nose is therefore identified better when considered in the context of a whole face; whereas a door may easily be identified based on its specific features, like its door knob. In effect, the normal and accepted identification trait for most faces is in its holistic and global context. References Blaney , R .L ., & Winograd, E . (1978), Developmental differences in children’s recognition memory for faces, Developmental Psychology, 14,(44), 14-42 Bothwell, R.K., Brigham, J.C., & Malpass, R.S. (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19–25. Bower, G., & Karlin, M. (1974), Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(3), 751-757. Brigham, J.C. (1986). The influence of race on face recognition. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A.W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 170–177). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Nijhoff. Bruce, V., Campbell, R.N., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Import, A., Langton, S., McAuley, S., & Wright, R. (2000). Testing face processing skills in children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 319–333. Carey, S., Diamond, R., & Woods, B. (1980). Development of face recognition: A maturational component? Developmental Psychology, 16, 257-269. Cashon, C.H., & Cohen, L.B. (2004). Beyond U-shaped development in infants’ processing of faces: an information-processing account. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 59-80. Coin, C. & Tiberghien, G. (1997), Encoding activity and face recognition. Psychology Press. Retrieved 25 March 2012 from http://webs.wofford.edu/boppkl/courseFiles/Cognition/Articles/FaceMem_Coin97.pdf Davidoff, J., & Donnelly, N. (1990). Object superiority: A comparison of complete and part probes. Acta Psychologica, 73, 225–243. Davidoff, J. and Fagot, F. Sep. 2008. Local and global processing: Observations from a remote culture. Cognition 108 (3): 702–709. Endo, M., Masame, K., & Maruyama, K. (1989). Interference from configuration of a schematic face onto the recognition of its constituent parts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 48, 97–106. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482–498. Gauthier, I., Curran, T., Curby, K.M., & Collins, D. (2003). Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 428–432. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: Exploring face recognition mechanisms. Vision Research, 37, 1673-1682. Geldart, S., Mondloch, C., Maurer, D., de Schonen, S., & Brent, H. (2002). The effects of early visual deprivation on the development of face processing. Developmental Science, 5, 490–501. Goffaux, V. & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces Are “Spatial”—Holistic Face Perception Is Supported by Low Spatial Frequencies, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 1023–1039. Heinze, H. J., & Munte, T. F. (1993). Electrophysiological correlates of hierarchical stimulus processing: Dissociation between onset and later stages of global and local target processing. Neuropsychologia, 31, 841–852. Heinze, H., Hinrichs, H. & Scholz, M., Burchert, W., & Mangun, G. (1998). Neural Mechanisms of Global and Local Processing: A Combined PET and ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10:4, pp. 485–498 Hole, G. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74. Hughes, H. C., Fendrich, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1990). Global versus local processing in the absence of low spatial frequencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 272–282. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M.M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311. Kimchi, R. (1998). Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1105–1118. Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. (1989). Do response time advantage and interference reflect the order of processing of global and local level information. Perception and Psychophysics, 46, 254–258. Lawson, R. (2007). Local and global processing biases fail to influence face, object, and word recognition. Visual Recognition, 15 (6), 710-740 Levin, D.T. (2000). Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 559–574. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). When context hinders: Learn-test compatibility in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 235–250. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2004). Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation. Psychological Science, 15, 762–768. Lewis, M. B., & Edmonds, A. J. (2003). Face detection: Mapping human performance. Perception, 32, 903–920. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. M. (2004). How different spatial-frequency components contribute to visual information acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 30,104–118. Mangun, G. R., & Hillyard, S. A. (1990). Allocation of visual attention to spatial location: Event-related brain potentials and detection performance. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 532–550. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. Maurer, D., & Lewis, T. L. (2001). Visual acuity: The role of visual input in inducing postnatal change. Clinical Neuroscience Research, 239–247. Michel, C., Rossion, B., Han, J., Chan-Sup Chung, & Caldara, R. (2006). Holistic Processing Is Finely Tuned for Faces of One’s Own Race. Association for Psychological Science, 17(7), 608-617. Mondloch, C., Pathman, T., Maurer, D., LeGrand, R. & de Schohen, S. (2006). The Composite Face Effect in Six-year-old Children: Evidence of Adultlike Holistic Face Processing. Brock University. Retrieved 23 March 2012 from http://139.57.65.11/psychology/research/Mondloch%20Holistic%206_yr_olds.pdf Pellicano, E., & Rhodes, G. (2003). Holistic processing of faces in preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 14, 618–622. Rhodes, G., Tan, S., Brake, S., & Taylor, K. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313–331. Richler, J., Mack, M., Gauthier, I. & Palmeri, T. (2009). Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance. Vision Research, 49, 2856–2861 Robertson, L., Egly, R., Lamb, M., & Kerth, L. (1993). Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 471–487. Sangrigoli, S., & de Schonen, S. (2004). Effect of visual experience on face processing: A developmental study of inversion and non-native effects. Developmental Science, 7, 74–87. Sergent, J., & Villemure, J. G. (1989). Prosopagnosia in a right hemispherectomized patient. Brain, 112, 975–995. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245. Tanaka, J.W., Kay, J.B., Grinnell, E., Stansfield, B., & Szechter, T. (1998). Face recognition in young children: When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Visual Cognition, 5, 479-496. Wenger, M. J., & Townsend, J. T. (2000). Spatial frequencies in short-term memory for faces: A test of three frequency-dependent hypotheses. Memory & Cognition, 28, 125–142. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759. Read More