Abstract
Tanaka and Farah (1993) have proposed a holistic approach to face recognition in which information about the features of a face and their configuration are combined together in the face representation. An implication of the holistic hypothesis is that alterations in facial configuration should interfere with retrieval of features. In four experiments, the effect of configuration on feature recognition was investigated by creating two configurations of a face, one with eyes close together and one with eyes far apart. After subjects studied faces presented in one of the two configurations (eyes-close or eyes-far), they were tested for their recognition of features shown in isolation, in a new face configuration, and in the old face configuration. It was found that subjects recognized features best when presented in the old configuration, next best in the new configuration, and poorest in isolation. Moreover, subjects were not sensitive to configural information in inverted faces (Experiment 2) or nonface stimuli (i.e., houses; Experiments 3 and 4). Importantly, for normal faces, altering the spatial location of the eyes not only impaired subjects’ recognition of the eye features but also impaired their recognition of the nose and mouth features—features whose spatial locations were not directly altered. These findings emphasize the interdependency of featural and configural information in a holistic face representation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartlett, J. C., &Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces.Cognitive Psychology,23, 281–316.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–117.
Bruce, V. (1988).Recognizing faces. London: Erlbaum.
Bruce, V., Doyle, T., Dench, N., &Burton, A. M. (1991). Remembering facial configurations.Cognition,38, 109–144.
Carey, S. (1992). Becoming a face expert.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,335, 95–103.
Carey, S., &Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces.Science,195, 312–314.
Davidoff, J., &Donnelly, N. (1990). Object superiority: A comparison of complete and part probes.Acta Psychologica,73, 225–243.
Diamond, R., &Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 107–117.
Enns, J. T., &Gilani, A. B. (1988). Three-dimensionality and discriminability in the object-superiority effect.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 243–256.
Farah, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain-specificity in visual object recognition.Current Directions in Psychological Science,1, 164–169.
Farah, M. J., Drain, H. M., &Tanaka, J.W. (1995). What causes the inversion effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 628–634.
Galton, F. (1879). Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons into a single, resultant figure.Journal of the Anthropological Institute,8, 132–144.
Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (in press). Becoming a Greeble expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition.Vision Research.
Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition.Perception,13, 104–109.
Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. In S. Pinker (Ed.),Visual cognition (pp.65–96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Homa, D., Haver, B., &Schwartz, T. (1976). Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt.Memory & Cognition,4, 176–185.
Hosie, J. A., Ellis, H. D., &Haig, N. D. (1988). The effect of feature displacement on the perception of well-known faces.Perception,17, 461–474.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Mermelstein, R., Banks, W., &Prinzmetal, W. (1979). Figural goodness effects in perception and memory.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 472–480.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 141–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 275–280.
Reinitz, M. T., Lammers, W. J., &Cochran, B. P. (1992). Memoryconjunction errors: Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory.Memory & Cognition,20, 1–11.
Reinitz, M. T., Morrissey, J., &Demb, J. (1994). Role of attention in face encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 161–168.
Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance.Perception,17, 43–63.
Rhodes, G., Brake, S., &Atkinson, A. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces?Cognition,17, 25–57.
Scapinello, K. F., &Yarmey, A. D. (1970). The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli.Psychonomic Science,21, 329–331.
Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception.British Journal of Psychology,75, 221–242.
Tanaka, J. W., &Farah, M. J. (1991). Second-order relational properties and the inversion effect: Testing a theory of face perception.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 367–372.
Tanaka, J. W., &Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experiment Psychology,46A, 225–245.
Tanaka, J. W., &Gauthier, I. (1997). Expertise in object and face recognition. In R. L. Goldstone, P. G. Schyns, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 36, pp. 83–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tanaka, J. W., &Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology,23, 457–482.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition.Acta Psychologica,61, 259–273.
Weisstein, N., &Harris, C. S. (1974). Visual detection of line segments: An object-superiority effect.Science,186, 752–755.
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word identification.Cognitive Psychology,1, 59–85.
Yarmey, A. D. (1971). Recognition memory for familiar “public” faces: Effects of orientation and delay.Psychonomic Science,24, 286–288.
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 141–145.
Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., &Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception.Perception,16, 747–759.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a Hughes Research Grant, Keck Foundation Faculty Research Award, and NIH Grant R15 HD30433.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanaka, J.W., Sengco, J.A. Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition 25, 583–592 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211301
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211301