Recognizing moving faces: a psychological and neural synthesis

O'Toole, Alice J.; Roark, Dana A.; Abdi, Hervé

doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01908-3

Cited by 430 publications

(333 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

301

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We are not suggesting that static and dynamic faces are equivalent in all aspects of face perception. For example, there is consistent evidence for a benefit of motion over static images when learning and recognising faces, particularly in ''non-optimal'' viewing conditions (e.g., Lander & Chuang, 2005; O'Toole, Roark, & Abdi, 2002;Roark et al, 2003). However, while there may be other differences, holistic processing is not the primary distinction between static and dynamic face perception.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, there is an obvious ecological validity to studying faces in motion. Although much research has investigated the utility of motion for face recognition (e.g., O'Toole, Roark, & Abdi, 2002;Roark et al, 2003;Xiao et al, 2014), little has investigated how motion influences the way in which faces are processed. Further, the little research there is has led to inconsistent results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamic composite faces are processed holistically

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Holistic processing is considered one of the hallmarks of face recognition. Recent studies using the composite task claim to show a lack of holistic processing for dynamic faces, however they only presented moving faces in the learning phase and tested with static composite images. So while previous research has addressed the question of whether moving faces influence the processing of subsequently viewed static faces, the question of whether moving faces are processed holistically remains unanswered. We address that question here. In our study participants learned faces in motion and were tested on moving composite faces, or learned static faces and were tested on static composite faces. We found a clear composite effect for both upright static and dynamic faces, with no significant difference in the magnitude of those effects. Further, there was no evidence of composite or motion effects in inverted conditions, ruling out low level or other motion signal properties as explanations of performance in upright faces. Together, these results show that upright moving faces are processed holistically, in a similar manner to static faces, extending decades of research with static faces and confirming the importance of holistic processing to familiar face recognition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic composite faces are processed holistically

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For infants, moving facial information might be more important than static facial information, probably because dynamic information is more salient than static information. Adults may rely more on static facial information for face processing, while facial movement information becomes secondary (the supplemental hypothesis, O'Toole, Roark, & Abdi, 2002). Although current findings do not provide direction evidence for this face representation shift, future studies might continue examining the proposal with more specific paradigms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural, but not artificial, facial movements elicit the left visual field bias in infant face scanning

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A left visual field (LVF) bias has been consistently reported in eye movement patterns when adults look at face stimuli, which reflects hemispheric lateralization of face processing and eye movements. However, the emergence of the LVF attentional bias in infancy is less clear. The present study investigated the emergence and development of the LVF attentional bias in infants from 3 to 9 months of age with moving face stimuli. We specifically examined the naturalness of facial movements in infants’ LVF attentional bias by comparing eye movement patterns in naturally and artificially moving faces. Results showed that 3- to 5-month-olds exhibited the LVF attentional bias only in the lower half of naturally moving faces, but not in artificially moving faces. Six- to 9-month-olds showed the LVF attentional bias in both the lower and upper face halves only in naturally moving, but not in artificially moving faces. These results suggest that the LVF attentional bias for face processing may emerge around 3 months of age and is driven by natural facial movements. The LVF attentional bias reflects the role of natural face experience in real life situations that may drive the development of hemispheric lateralization of face processing in infancy.

show abstract

“…35,36,38–45,57,67,68 When monkeys reciprocated the facial expressions of others, a subset of neurons in the amygdala increased their firing rate. 69,70 Neural activity aligned in time with the production of facial expressions raised the possibility that the amygdala plays a role in the production of facial expressions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New perspectives on the neurophysiology of primate amygdala emerging from the study of naturalistic social behaviors

Gothard

Mosher

Zimmerman

et al. 2017

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge of primate neurophysiology, particularly in the domain of social neuroscience, is to adopt more natural behaviors without compromising the ability to relate patterns of neural activity to specific actions or sensory inputs. Traditional approaches have identified neural activity patterns in the amygdala in response to simplified versions of social stimuli such as static images of faces. As a departure from this reduced approach, single images of faces were replaced with arrays of images or videos of conspecifics. These stimuli elicited more natural behaviors and new types of neural responses: (1) attention-gated responses to faces, (2) selective responses to eye contact, and (3) selective responses to touch and somatosensory feedback during the production of facial expressions. An additional advance toward more natural social behaviors in the laboratory was the implementation of dyadic social interactions. Under these conditions, neurons encoded similarly rewards that monkeys delivered to self and to their social partner. These findings reinforce the value of bringing natural, ethologically valid, behavioral tasks under neurophysiological scrutiny.

show abstract

Recognizing moving faces: a psychological and neural synthesis

Cited by 430 publications

References 28 publications

Dynamic composite faces are processed holistically

Dynamic composite faces are processed holistically

Natural, but not artificial, facial movements elicit the left visual field bias in infant face scanning

New perspectives on the neurophysiology of primate amygdala emerging from the study of naturalistic social behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About