person perception whats in a face? who or what are you?

Person Perception

What’s in a Face?What’s in a Face?

Who or What are You?Who or What are You?

Lectures 1 & 2:Person Perception

Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Social Cognition: Thinking Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Social Cognition: Thinking categorically about others. categorically about others. Annual Review of PsychologyAnnual Review of Psychology, , 5151, 93-120. , 93-120.

Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Are you always on my mind? A review Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Are you always on my mind? A review of how face perception and attention interact. of how face perception and attention interact. NeuropsychologiaNeuropsychologia, , 4545, 75-92., 75-92.

Tarr M.J., & Cheng, Y.D. (2002). Learning to see faces and objects. Tarr M.J., & Cheng, Y.D. (2002). Learning to see faces and objects. Trends Trends in Cognitive Sciencesin Cognitive Sciences, , 77, 23-30., 23-30.

Lecture 1 – Face Perception (Background and Basics)Lecture 1 – Face Perception (Background and Basics)

Lecture 2 – Person Categorization Lecture 2 – Person Categorization

Face Perception:Triggering Person Understanding

Recognizing Others

QuickTime™ and aSorenson Video 3 decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Development of Face Perception

Is Face Processing Innate?

• Goren, Sarty, & Wu (1975)Goren, Sarty, & Wu (1975)

showed that new born infants (with an average age showed that new born infants (with an average age of 9 minutes) track schematic face-like of 9 minutes) track schematic face-like

patterns patterns more than control patterns with the more than control patterns with the same features same features rearranged - see also Dziurawiec & rearranged - see also Dziurawiec & Ellis (1986)Ellis (1986)

• human infants may come equipped with knowledge of human infants may come equipped with knowledge of faces (i.e., roughly what do faces look like)faces (i.e., roughly what do faces look like)

I’m Looking at You


But What About Face Recognition:Are You My Mother?

Recognizing Family Members

• person recognition develops in the first 7 months of life -person recognition develops in the first 7 months of life -Sai & Bushnell (1988) report that 1-month olds can Sai & Bushnell (1988) report that 1-month olds can discriminate between the face of their mother and a discriminate between the face of their mother and a stranger.stranger.

• Bushnell et al. (1989) - two day olds can perform the Bushnell et al. (1989) - two day olds can perform the above discrimination.above discrimination.

• hair cues (12-month olds cannot discriminate face of hair cues (12-month olds cannot discriminate face of mother and stranger if the hair region is concealed with a mother and stranger if the hair region is concealed with a bathing cap - Bushnell, 1982).bathing cap - Bushnell, 1982).

Face Cues:Extracting Person Knowledge

• Invariant knowledgeInvariant knowledge – – identity, sex, race.identity, sex, race.

• Variable knowledgeVariable knowledge - - expression, emotional status, expression, emotional status, direction of attention.direction of attention.

• Static vs. Dynamic CuesStatic vs. Dynamic Cues

• Complex processing Complex processing conditionsconditions

Face Processing Models

• Bruce & Young (1986) ModelBruce & Young (1986) Model

basic assumption – information is extracted from faces via basic assumption – information is extracted from faces via two distinct processing routes:two distinct processing routes:

(i) identity route(i) identity route

(ii) expression/sex/age/gaze route(ii) expression/sex/age/gaze route

• behavioral, patient, imaging evidencebehavioral, patient, imaging evidence

Face Processing:Cognitive and Neural Components

Bruce & Young (1986)

Haxby et al., (2000)

Who or What Are You?Extracting Categories and Identities

Identifying People

• what makes a person recognizable?what makes a person recognizable?

features vs. configurations (part-based vs. holistic features vs. configurations (part-based vs. holistic

processing (importance of configural information)processing (importance of configural information)

A Face of Two Halves

• Young et al (1987) made new Young et al (1987) made new composite faces from the top composite faces from the top halves and bottom halves halves and bottom halves different famous faces. When different famous faces. When the two halves of the composite the two halves of the composite were closely aligned, to form a were closely aligned, to form a new face, subjects found it very new face, subjects found it very difficult to name the top halves. difficult to name the top halves. When the two halves were When the two halves were misaligned, subjects were much misaligned, subjects were much quicker to name the top halvesquicker to name the top halves

Who is It?

Disrupting Configural Processing

• Face identification relies on Face identification relies on configural information. configural information. Recognition is impaired Recognition is impaired when faces are inverted (i.e., when faces are inverted (i.e., featural processing dominates featural processing dominates - Young et al., 1988)- Young et al., 1988)

A Blast From the Past

Is Anybody Safe?

Expertise and Configural Processing

• Diamond and Carey (1986) Diamond and Carey (1986) showed that recognition of showed that recognition of individual members of a breed individual members of a breed of dogs by expert breeders was of dogs by expert breeders was as disrupted by inversion as as disrupted by inversion as was face recognition (thus, dog was face recognition (thus, dog breeders relied on configural breeders relied on configural processing to identify processing to identify individual dogs)individual dogs)

Importance of Facial Configuration

• the importance of the overall configuration of the face can the importance of the overall configuration of the face can help us understand why face recognition can be help us understand why face recognition can be remarkably robust despite a variety of natural (change in remarkably robust despite a variety of natural (change in expression, orientation etc) as well as unnatural (cartoons) expression, orientation etc) as well as unnatural (cartoons) transformations in faces.transformations in faces.

Recognizing Caricatures

• caricatures can be more caricatures can be more recognizable than line recognizable than line drawings of the same drawings of the same faces (Rhodes et al., faces (Rhodes et al., 1987). Caricatures are 1987). Caricatures are effective because they effective because they exaggerate the exaggerate the relationship between the relationship between the component facial featurescomponent facial features

Are Faces Special:Is Britney Spears Like a Teapot?

Critical Issues

• Is there anything special about the stimulus category faces or are Is there anything special about the stimulus category faces or are they just like any other class of objects?they just like any other class of objects?

• Hay and Young (1982)Hay and Young (1982)uniquenessuniqueness - are the perceptual and cognitive - are the perceptual and cognitive

processes used for recognizing faces different in processes used for recognizing faces different in nature from nature from those used to process other classes of information?those used to process other classes of information?

specificityspecificity - are the processes involved in face - are the processes involved in face recognition, irrespective of their nature, organized into a recognition, irrespective of their nature, organized into a separate system that deals only with faces?separate system that deals only with faces?

Evidence for Cognitive Distinctiveness

• complexity - face recognition among our greatest complexity - face recognition among our greatest accomplishments (we learn 1000s of faces) accomplishments (we learn 1000s of faces)

• own-race bias (Bothwell et al., 1989)own-race bias (Bothwell et al., 1989)recognition for Black/White faces among recognition for Black/White faces among

Black/White participantsBlack/White participants

own-race bias (configural vs. featural processing)own-race bias (configural vs. featural processing)

evolution of a special face processing systemevolution of a special face processing system

Configural Information

• faces are special because of their reliance on configural faces are special because of their reliance on configural informationinformation

inverted faces and other-race faces disrupt inverted faces and other-race faces disrupt configural processingconfigural processing

butbut

remember the dog experts!remember the dog experts!

Britney and the Teapot:The Neural Correlates of Face Processing

Evidence Relating to Neural Distinctiveness

• Single-Cell RecordingSingle-Cell Recordingsingle neurons in the superior temporal sulcus (STS) single neurons in the superior temporal sulcus (STS) that are selectively responsive to faces.that are selectively responsive to faces.

• Gross (1992) showed that the cells that are sensitive to Gross (1992) showed that the cells that are sensitive to face stimuli do not respond to other complexface stimuli do not respond to other complexvisual patterns (e.g., hands).visual patterns (e.g., hands).

• Perrett et al. (1988) have demonstrated that certain cells in Perrett et al. (1988) have demonstrated that certain cells in STS are tuned to the face of a particular known STS are tuned to the face of a particular known individual.individual.

Recording in STS

Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness

• lateralizationlateralization

- patients with unilateral lesions- patients with unilateral lesions

- normal participants - visual half-field procedures- normal participants - visual half-field procedures

- right hemisphere is dominant for face perception - right hemisphere is dominant for face perception (e.g., prosopagnosia) (e.g., prosopagnosia)

Still Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness

• aetology & anatomyaetology & anatomy

face processing disorders emerge in a wide range of face processing disorders emerge in a wide range of patient populationspatient populations- dementia (Hodges et al., 1993)- dementia (Hodges et al., 1993)- closed head injury (De Haan & Campbell, 1992)- closed head injury (De Haan & Campbell, 1992)- autistic patients (Teunisse & De Gelder, 1994)- autistic patients (Teunisse & De Gelder, 1994)

Yet Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness

• functional imagingfunctional imaging

recent PET/fMRI investigations have identified a recent PET/fMRI investigations have identified a number of areas involved in the processing number of areas involved in the processing

of of familiar faces in the posterior, occipito-familiar faces in the posterior, occipito-temporal temporal areas of the brain, the fusiform areas of the brain, the fusiform gyrus - especially gyrus - especially in the right hemisphere.in the right hemisphere.

• fusiform face area (FFA)fusiform face area (FFA)

responds selectively to facesresponds selectively to faces

specific face processing systemspecific face processing system

Fusiform Face Area (FFA)

• functional brain imaging functional brain imaging investigations of the normal investigations of the normal human brain show that a region human brain show that a region in the fusiform gyrus is not in the fusiform gyrus is not only activated when subjects only activated when subjects view faces, but is activated view faces, but is activated twice as strongly for faces as twice as strongly for faces as for a wide range of non-face for a wide range of non-face stimuli (Kanwisher et al., 1997)stimuli (Kanwisher et al., 1997)

Is the Fusiform Gyrus a Face-Specific Region?

• domain generalitydomain generality

- discriminating between perceptually similar - discriminating between perceptually similar objectsobjects

- are we simply experts at faces?- are we simply experts at faces?

- might the putative face-specific mechanisms be - might the putative face-specific mechanisms be specialized for making any discriminations specialized for making any discriminations

for for which we have gained expertise (remember which we have gained expertise (remember the the dog breeders and the effects of inversion)?dog breeders and the effects of inversion)?

Enter the Greebles

Greebles in the Brain


Tapping Expertise:Gauthier et al. (2000)

Activating Expertise

• When bird experts and car When bird experts and car experts were scanned while experts were scanned while viewing birds, cars, faces, and viewing birds, cars, faces, and objects, the activity in the face-objects, the activity in the face-selective region of the of selective region of the of fusiform gyrus is weakest fusiform gyrus is weakest during the viewing of assorted during the viewing of assorted objects, next strongest for the objects, next strongest for the non-expert category, stronger non-expert category, stronger yet for the expert category, and yet for the expert category, and strongest for faces (Gauthier et strongest for faces (Gauthier et al., 2000)al., 2000)

Summary

Things Worth KnowingThings Worth Knowing

1.1. Components of Face Processing (i.e., featural vs. configural Components of Face Processing (i.e., featural vs. configural information) information)

2.2. Are Faces Special?Are Faces Special?

Next WeekNext Week

1. Person Categorization1. Person Categorization

Lecture 2:Person Categorization (Who or What are You?)

Two Routes to Person Understanding

• person categorization

categorical thinking

generic knowledge (stereotypes)

fast, efficient, thoughtless

• person individuation

unique persons

idiosyncratic attributes

slow, effortful, thoughtfulindividuation categorization

Allport’s Assumption:The Dominance of Categorical Thinking

“we like to solve problems easily. We can do so best if we can fit them rapidly into a satisfactory category and use this category as a means of prejudging the solution…So long as we can get away with course overgeneralizations we tend to do so. Why? Well, it takes less effort, and effort, except in the area of our most intense interests, is disagreeable.”

(1954, pp. 20-21)

Two Views of Jim

• ‘individuated’ Jim

• ‘categorical’ Jim

‘Individuated’ Jim

‘Categorical’ Jim

Opening the Social-Cognitive Toolbox:The Power of Categorical Thinking

• reported effects in the literature

memories

impressions

actions

attentional preservation

• but something’s missing

people & perception

target registration

Origins of Categorical Thinking:Relocating the ‘Person’ in Person Perception

• cognitive economyprimary cause or useful consequence

• social-cognitive processing streamexploiting the products of perceptual operations

• ease of knowledge extractioncategorical vs. identity-based

Schematic Model of Person Construal

categorization

identification

person-based processing

category-based processing

memories impressions actions

????

Extracting Categorical Knowledge From a Face:Is it Easy?

• what or who do you see?category vs. identity

• sources of facial informationfeatural vs. configural

• sub-optimal conditionsorientationdegradationpresentation

Troublesome Conditions

Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal:Effects of Inversion

• disrupting person construal

sex vs. identity

• costs of facial inversion

configural to featural shift

• speed of construal

sex vs. familiarity

Speed of Construal (facial inversion)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Sex Identity

Median reaction time

upright

inverted

Cloutier, Mason & Macrae (2005)

Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal:Effects of Blurring


sex vs. identity

• costs of blurring (spatial filtering)


sex vs. familiarity

Speed of Construal (blur)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Sex Identity


clear

blurred


Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal:Speed of Presentation


sex vs. identity

• costs of rapid presentation


sex vs. familiarity

Speed of Construal (presentation duration)

500

600

700

800

900

Sex Identity


200 msec

20 msec


What’s That?

Person Perception:Sex vs. Identity -Viewpoint Invariant?

• identity vs. sex

familiar or unfamiliar?

male of female?

• rotation costs

viewpoint dependence

0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees

• speed of classification

Speed of Classification

Cloutier & Macrae (2007)

Person Categorization:Viewpoint Invariant?

• featural cues

hairstyle

• rotation costs

viewpoint dependence

0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees

• stimulus normalization

hair vs. no hair

• speed of sex categorization

Speed of Sex Categorization

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

0° 45° 90° 135° 180°Orientation


Hair

No Hair


Racial Categorization:More Disappearing Cues

• skin tone (Levin, 2000)

hairstyle

• remove critical cues

featural to configural shift

• costs of facial rotation

Hue are You?

Speed of Race Categorization

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

0° 45° 90° 135° 180°Orientation


OriginalGreen


Is it All in the Hair?

• triggering cues

intact face vs. hair

• social-cognitive products

categories

stereotypes

• priming effects

Hair and Sex Priming

Prime

Target

mismatching matching matching mismatching

male or female?

Angela Peter Ballet Jeep

Category Priming

RT(ms)

Macrae & Martin (2008)

Stereotype Priming

RT(ms)


Changing Sex

Errors of Construal:Dude Looks Like a Lady!

• triggering cues

power of hair

• stimulus appraisal

feature-based processing

M100 (Liu et al., 2002)

• presentation duration

25 ms vs. 200 ms

Errors of Construal


E x p e r i m e n t 2 - 2 0 0 m s

6 0 0

6 2 0

6 4 0

6 6 0

6 8 0

7 0 0

7 2 0

7 4 0

7 6 0

7 8 0

S h o r t H a i r

M a l e P r i m e

L o n g H a i r L o n g H a i r

F e m a l e P r i m e

S h o r t H a i r

C o n d i t i o n

Response Latency (ms)

M a t c h i n g

M i s m a t c h i n g

Errors of Construal


E x p e r i m e n t 2 - 2 5 m s

6 0 0

6 2 0

6 4 0

6 6 0

6 8 0

7 0 0

7 2 0

7 4 0

7 6 0

7 8 0

S h o r t H a i r

M a l e P r i m e

L o n g H a i r L o n g H a i r

F e m a l e P r i m e

S h o r t H a i r

C o n d i t i o n

Response Latency (ms)

M a t c h i n g

M i s m a t c h i n g

The Paradox of Person Construal:Extracting Identities

• what do you see?man?rock star?Rod Stewart?habitual dater of blondes?

• paradoxsex vs. identity

• spontaneous construalfamiliar objectsspecificityentry level (Tanaka, 2001)

What Do You See?

Spontaneous Construal

Prop.

Familiarity and Sex Priming

Prime (150 ms)

Target


male or female?

Sex Priming

RT (ms)

Quinn, Mason & Macrae (2009)

Familiarity and Sex Priming II: Speed of Extraction

Prime

Target


100 or 150 ms 100 or 150 ms

male or female?

Sex Priming (150 ms)

RT (ms)


Sex Priming (100 ms)

RT (ms)


Extracting Identities: Temporal Parameters

• there’s something about Carey!

when is Mariah a woman? (~100ms)

when is Mariah, Mariah? (~150ms)

• time course of identity-based processing

sex then identity?does Mariah override woman?

Identity-Based Priming: Speed of Extraction

Prime

Target


100 or 150 ms 100 or 150 ms

familiar or unfamiliar?

Identity-Based Priming

RT (ms)


Summary

Things Worth KnowingThings Worth Knowing

1.1. Efficiency of Person Categorization Efficiency of Person Categorization

2.2. Importance of Featural CuesImportance of Featural Cues

Next WeekNext Week

1. Stereotyping1. Stereotyping

person perception whats in a face? who or what are you?

Documents

face recognition

new face

face cues

face of mother

past slide

identities slide

face perception background

person categorization