Face-specific capacity limits under perceptual load do not depend on holistic processing

Thoma, Volker

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0633-2

Cited by 4 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data are in line with previous work suggesting that processing of a peripheral face has no general capacity limits (Lavie et al, 2003;Neumann et al, 2011), but that distracter processing is diminished or eliminated when the search set contains additional faces other than the target face (Thoma & Lavie, 2013;Thoma, 2014;Thoma et al 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Error rates were analysed in an equivalent ANOVA, revealing no significant effects, for congruency, F(1, 15) = 2.76, p = .118, partial eta 2 = .155, or for the other effects, F's < 1. In summary, the results of Experiment 1 replicated the results of Thoma and Lavie (2013) and Thoma (2014), showing that processing of distracter faces is not affected by increasing perceptual load when the central task is loaded with strings.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 65%

“…were processed despite the increased attentional demands of a relevant task that involved processing of non-face stimuli. Experiment 2 was designed to test whether displays with face images as target and non-targets increase the perceptual load in the central task such that the distracter face cannot be perceived anymore (Thoma and Lavie, 2013;Thoma, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Three-Quarter Views of Depth-Rotated Faces Induce Face-Specific Capacity Limits in Visual Search

Thoma

Fockert

2018

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Participants made speeded categorization decisions regarding a famous person (politician or film star) accompanied by a peripheral distracter face (either the same or from the opposite category). The first experiment found that processing a peripheral distracter face is independent of load when the search set contains name strings. The search set in the second experiment consisted of faces. Interference effects between the target and distracter face (both shown in frontal views) were found when no additional non-target faces were present (low load), but not when two non-famous faces (high load) accompanied the target face, even when the latter were shown in three-quarter views. These results indicate that face-specific capacity limitations are independent of changes in view (up to 45°) and gaze direction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Quarter Views of Depth-Rotated Faces Induce Face-Specific Capacity Limits in Visual Search

Thoma

Fockert

2018

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of Thoma and Lavie ( 2013 ) therefore showed that the processing of face distracters only depends on perceptual load when load manipulation involved face stimuli. Recently, Thoma ( 2014 ) confirmed the face-specific aspect of load capacity in similar experiments. Importantly, that study also showed that when the central task was loaded with inverted non-target faces (while searching for an upright famous target face) the congruency effects were still reduced, just as observed with upright non-target faces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This so-called face inversion effect (FIE; Yin, 1969 ) is regularly cited as important evidence that faces have a special status, since it demonstrates that inversion has a greater effect on recognition of a face than on recognition of other objects (but see Richler et al, 2011 , for the view that upside-down faces may still be processed “holistically”). Yet, Thoma's ( 2014 ) finding that increasing perceptual load with upside-down faces also reduces distracter processing is strong evidence that the observed face-specific capacity limits are not—or not solely—determined by holistic face representations, at least in the sense of so-called first order relations between parts. This leads to the question which other properties of face processing can explain category-specific load effects?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misaligned and Polarity-Reversed Faces Determine Face-specific Capacity Limits

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research using flanker paradigms suggests that peripheral distracter faces are automatically processed when participants have to classify a single central familiar target face. These distracter interference effects disappear when the central task contains additional anonymous (non-target) faces that load the search for the face target, but not when the central task contains additional non-face stimuli, suggesting there are face-specific capacity limits in visual processing. Here we tested whether manipulating the format of non-target faces in the search task affected face-specific capacity limits. Experiment 1 replicated earlier findings that a distracter face is processed even in high load conditions when participants looked for a target name of a famous person among additional names (non-targets) in a central search array. Two further experiments show that when targets and non-targets were faces (instead of names), however, distracter interference was eliminated under high load-adding non-target faces to the search array exhausted processing capacity for peripheral faces. The novel finding was that replacing non-target faces with images that consisted of two horizontally misaligned face-parts reduced distracter processing. Similar results were found when the polarity of a non-target face image was reversed. These results indicate that face-specific capacity limits are not determined by the configural properties of face processing, but by face parts.

show abstract

When Eyewitnesses Misremember

Resnick

2014

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitness testimony is a critical component of U.S. jurisprudence in both civil and criminal proceedings. Witnesses are relied on to recount key events, behaviors, and circumstances that contribute to findings of fact surrounding alleged criminal acts or circumstances that are the subject of civil dispute. The contribution of eyewitness testimony depends critically on the reliability of the witnesses' memory of the events they are describing. Unfortunately, there are significant limits of human episodic memory that may degrade or distort these memories. Compounding this challenge is the poor metacognitive awareness of memory's limitations. Eyewitnesses may overestimate the quality of their memory in accuracy and precision. They may be unaware of the potential for false details to merge into their episodic memories of an event. Jurists are similarly unaware of the limitations of memory and may rely too heavily on eyewitness testimony when resolving cases. But acknowledging and accounting for the limitations of memory has costs. Without eyewitness testimony many cases would not be viable, so there is a societal need to tolerate these limitations in order to have a working legal system. Human factors professionals, who are testifying as investigators in the case, may be the only source through which jurors can be informed of memory's limitations when general memory experts are not admitted to testify solely for that purpose. When performed capably, this testimony can significantly improve the outcomes of legal proceedings.

show abstract

Face-specific capacity limits under perceptual load do not depend on holistic processing

Cited by 4 publications

References 44 publications

Three-Quarter Views of Depth-Rotated Faces Induce Face-Specific Capacity Limits in Visual Search

Three-Quarter Views of Depth-Rotated Faces Induce Face-Specific Capacity Limits in Visual Search

Misaligned and Polarity-Reversed Faces Determine Face-specific Capacity Limits

When Eyewitnesses Misremember

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About