The part-whole effect in super-recognisers and typical-range-ability controls

Belanova, Elena; Davis, Joseph S.; Thompson, Trevor

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2021.06.004

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If superior face-recognition ability is accompanied by strategic differences in the way in which face-processing tasks are completed, it opens the possibility that these strategies could be learned by others. Along with previous evidence for a “nose-superiority effect” in SRs [ 30 ], we suggest (along with others, e.g., [ 53 ]) that fixation at the centre of face images allows for more information to fall on the sensitive central retinal area which contains the highest visual acuity. Therefore, fixation around the nose may be an optimal strategy for completing face matching tasks [ 53 , 54 ] and might also allow for a more effective spread of visual attention across the whole face.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Specifically, SRs were better able to detect when the face was the same than the other groups and showed a more complex pattern in terms of their accuracy and response times. While a previous study found SRs were overall better than controls at identifying eye, mouth, and nose changes than controls on the part–whole task, a large number of SRs showed a bias towards nose changes [ 30 ]. We replicated this nose-superiority-effect and showed that SRs were generally more accurate than controls on the nose trials (see Figure 2 C).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All participants had intact vision, no other reported cognitive difficulties, and no history of neurological trauma. Participants eligible for the DP group reported impaired face recognition in daily life, scores two standard deviations (SD) below the population mean on the PI20 (30), and pre-study impaired performance on at least two out of three standardised tests of face recognition. These tests were the CFMT [15], the CFPT [33,34], and a modified version of the Famous Face Test (FFT [31]).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies have examined feature processing ability for separate features in super-recognisers (SRs). Using the part–whole task, Belanova and colleagues found that SRs were significantly better at detecting feature changes than controls, with a subgroup of SRs performing better on the nose condition [ 30 ]. However, it is important to note that some SRs showed significant effects in the opposite direction, suggesting the underlying mechanisms supporting this skill may substantially differ, which may explain the variation in outcomes both within and between studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Face Feature Change Detection Ability in Developmental Prosopagnosia and Super-Recognisers

Davies-Thompson,

Morgan,

Davis

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In non-clinical populations, facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) may vary in their contribution to face identity perception. Changes to whole faces are easier to detect than changes to individual features, and eye changes are typically easier to detect than mouth changes, which in turn are easier to detect than nose changes. However, how this differs for people with face recognition difficulties (developmental prosopagnosia; DP) and for individuals with superior face recognition abilities (super-recognisers; SR) is not clear; although findings from previous studies have suggested differences, the nature of this difference is not understood. The aim of this study was to examine whether differences in the ability to detect feature changes in DPs and SRs were (a) quantitative, meaning that the pattern across feature changes remained the same but there was an overall upwards or downwards shift in performance, or (b) qualitative, meaning that the pattern across feature changes was different. Using a change detection task in which individual face features (eyes, nose, mouth) changed between sequentially presented faces, we found that while prosopagnosics showed a quantitative difference in performance with a downwards shift across all conditions, super-recognisers only showed qualitative differences: they were better able to detect when the face was the same and were marginally (but not non-significantly) worse at detecting when the eyes changed. Further, the only condition which distinguished between the three groups was the ability to identify when the same face was presented, with SRs being better than controls, and controls being better than DPs. Our findings suggest that, in feature-matching tasks, differences for DPs are due to them being overall worse at the task, while SRs use a qualitatively different strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Face Feature Change Detection Ability in Developmental Prosopagnosia and Super-Recognisers

Davies-Thompson,

Morgan,

Davis

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How do face processing strategies and eye-movements contribute to individual differences in face recognition ability?

Yüvrük,

Tütüncü,

Amado

2023

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face masks and fake masks: the effect of real and superimposed masks on face matching with super-recognisers, typical observers, and algorithms

Ritchie,

Carragher,

Davis

et al. 2024

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mask wearing has been required in various settings since the outbreak of COVID-19, and research has shown that identity judgements are difficult for faces wearing masks. To date, however, the majority of experiments on face identification with masked faces tested humans and computer algorithms using images with superimposed masks rather than images of people wearing real face coverings. In three experiments we test humans (control participants and super-recognisers) and algorithms with images showing different types of face coverings. In all experiments we tested matching concealed or unconcealed faces to an unconcealed reference image, and we found a consistent decrease in face matching accuracy with masked compared to unconcealed faces. In Experiment 1, typical human observers were most accurate at face matching with unconcealed images, and poorer for three different types of superimposed mask conditions. In Experiment 2, we tested both typical observers and super-recognisers with superimposed and real face masks, and found that performance was poorer for real compared to superimposed masks. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with algorithms. Our results highlight the importance of testing both humans and algorithms with real face masks, as using only superimposed masks may underestimate their detrimental effect on face identification.

show abstract

The part-whole effect in super-recognisers and typical-range-ability controls

Cited by 4 publications

References 55 publications

Face Feature Change Detection Ability in Developmental Prosopagnosia and Super-Recognisers

Face Feature Change Detection Ability in Developmental Prosopagnosia and Super-Recognisers

How do face processing strategies and eye-movements contribute to individual differences in face recognition ability?

Face masks and fake masks: the effect of real and superimposed masks on face matching with super-recognisers, typical observers, and algorithms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About