What’s in the name? Categorical perception for unfamiliar faces can occur through labeling

Kikutani, Mariko; Roberson, Debi; Hanley, J. Richard

doi:10.3758/pbr.15.4.787

Cited by 41 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Error bars = ±1 standard error 12 boundary within-category trials (WR) for both famous and unfamiliar face continua. In a new analysis of the CP data from Kikutani et al (2008) first experiment that found CP only for familiar faces, the 20 participants showed a significant effect of target type, F(2, 38) = 6.93, MSE = .027, p < .01. A Newman-Keuls pairwise comparison showed no significant difference between CR and GE targets, but both CR (p < .01) and GE (p < .01) targets were recognized significantly better than PE targets.…”

Section: Proportion Correctmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar results were obtained with preexperimentally unfamiliar faces so long as the faces and their names were learned before the 2AFC task began. All of Kikutani et al (2008) …”

Section: Retention Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study 4: facial identity (Kikutani et al, 2008) Kikutani et al (2008 demonstrated categorical perception of preexperimentally familiar faces using morphs of two well-known celebrities. They reported that performance was better in the 2AFC task when the target and distractor crossed the category boundary between the two face identities than when both morphs were from within the same face category.…”

Section: Retention Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Categorical perception effects reflect differences in typicality on within-category trials

Hanley

Roberson

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have shown better discrimination of two stimuli that cross a category boundary than of two stimuli belonging to the same category. This finding, known as categorical perception, is generally assumed to reflect consistently good performance on cross-category trials, relative to within-category trials. However, Roberson, D., Damjanovic, L., and Pilling, M. (Memory & Cognition, 35, 1814-1829 revealed that performance on withincategory pairs of morphed facial expressions matched performance on cross-category trials when the target was a good exemplar of its category. Here, we investigate the generality of that finding by conducting new analyses of data from a series of studies of categorical perception in facial identity and color domains with speakers of different languages. Consistent with Roberson et al. (2007), the new analyses demonstrate that performance for central targets on within-category trials is as good as performance on crosscategory trials. Participants perform badly on withincategory items only when the target is closer to the category boundary than is the distractor. These results provide no support for the view that categorical perception is associated with increased perceptual sensitivity at category boundaries.

show abstract

Section: Proportion Correctmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar results were obtained with preexperimentally unfamiliar faces so long as the faces and their names were learned before the 2AFC task began. All of Kikutani et al (2008) …”

Section: Retention Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Retention Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Categorical perception effects reflect differences in typicality on within-category trials

Hanley

Roberson

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, their learning task involved a name to image association which may not reflect face familiarity learning as proposed by an FRU account (e.g., Bruce & Young, 1986;Burton, Bruce & Hancock, 1999;Burton, Bruce & Johnston, 1990). Indeed, it is possible that their name associative learning procedure may instead have promoted categorical perception processes that may harm unfamiliar face learning (e.g., Kikutani, Roberson & Hanley, 2008. Finally, Longmore et al (2008) used images which contained extraneous features such as hair.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for View-Invariant Face Recognition Units in Unfamiliar Face Learning

Etchells

Brooks

Johnston

2017

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many models of face recognition incorporate the idea of a face recognition unit (FRU). This is an abstracted representation formed from each experience of a face. Longmore et al.(2008) devised a face learning experiment to investigate such a construct (i.e., viewinvariance) but failed to find evidence of its existence. Three experiments developed Longmore et al.'s study further by using a different learning task, by employing more stimuli.One or two views of previously unfamiliar faces were shown to participants in a serial matching task (learning). Later, participants attempted to recognise both seen and novel views of the learned faces. Experiment one tested participants' recognition of a novel view, a day after learning. Experiment two was identical, but tested participants on the same day as learning. And experiment three repeated experiment one, but tested participants on a novel view that was outside the rotation of those views learned. Results revealed a significant advantage for recognising a novel view when two views had been learned, rather than a single learned view -for all experiments. The effect of view-invariance found when both views were learned is discussed.Keywords: face recognition unit, face learning, face recognition, pictorial and structural encoding, view invariance. FACE RECOGNITION UNITS AND FACE LEARNING 3Although our everyday experience of familiarity with faces of family members, close friends and colleagues is often taken for granted, the question of how this level of familiarity is achieved has been surprisingly difficult to investigate (Burton, 2013). It is clear that familiar and unfamiliar faces are processed in different ways. Changes in view, expression and context all impair unfamiliar but not familiar face recognition (e.g., Johnston & Edmonds, 2009). These differences tend to be explained in terms of the way that familiar and unfamiliar faces are represented in memory (e.g., Megraya & Burton, 2006). Although a face may have been seen before, it may still be unfamiliar and not as easily recognised in novel conditions because of its qualitatively different memory representation from that of a familiar face. Bruce and Young's (1986) influential face recognition model explicitly distinguished between qualitatively different codes that can be accessed when a face is seen: pictorial or structural. The difference between these can be employed to explain the differences between familiar and unfamiliar face recognition.A 'pictorial' account distinguishes familiar and unfamiliar face representations primarily in terms of their frequency. Each episode or trace reflects only the stimulus properties of the experience and, in the stored representation, does not generalise beyond the properties of these experiences. Under this account, the primary difference between familiar and unfamiliar face representations is that familiar faces simply have far more traces storedtherefore there are no qualitative differences in the nature of familiar and unfamiliar representations. This greate...

show abstract

“…Several studies have demonstrated that whether CP is observed at all depends on various factors including (1) the availability of verbal labels during perceptual testing [9], (2) the particular kind of perceptual assessment used to determine whether CP is present [10], and (3) how stimulus morphspaces are created [11]. However, few studies have reported differences in the kind of CP effect observed based on experimental manipulations, though there are exceptions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Categorization on Perceptual Judgment are Robust across Different Assessment Tasks

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learned visual categorical perception (CP) effects were assessed using three different measures (similarity rating, same-different judgment, and an XAB task) and two sets of stimuli differing in discriminability and varying on one category-relevant and one category-irrelevant dimension. Participant scores were converted to a common scale to allow assessment method to serve as an independent variable. Two different analyses using the Bayes Factor approach produced patterns of results consistent with learned CP effects: compared to a control group, participants trained on the category distinction could better discriminate between-category pairs of stimuli and were more sensitive to the category-relevant dimension. In addition, performance was better in general for the more highly discriminable stimuli, but stimulus discriminability did not influence the pattern of observed CP effects. Furthermore, these results were consistent regardless of how performance was assessed. This suggests that, for these methods at least, learned CP effects are robust across substantially different performance measures. Four different kinds of learned CP effects are reported in the literature singly or in combination: greater sensitivity between categories, reduced sensitivity within categories, increased sensitivity to category-relevant dimensions, and decreased sensitivity to category-irrelevant dimensions. The results of the current study suggest that the cause of these different patterns of CP effects is not due to either stimulus discriminability or assessment task. Other possible causes of the differences in reported CP findings are discussed.

show abstract

What’s in the name? Categorical perception for unfamiliar faces can occur through labeling

Cited by 41 publications

References 18 publications

Categorical perception effects reflect differences in typicality on within-category trials

Categorical perception effects reflect differences in typicality on within-category trials

Evidence for View-Invariant Face Recognition Units in Unfamiliar Face Learning

The Effects of Categorization on Perceptual Judgment are Robust across Different Assessment Tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About