Why are some people’s names easier to learn than others? The effects of face similarity on memory for face-name associations

Pantelis, Peter C.; Vugt, Marieke K. van; Sekuler, Robert; Wilson, Hugh R.; Kahana, Michael J.

doi:10.3758/mc.36.6.1182

Cited by 30 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding demonstrates that the memory-enhancing effects of facial distinctiveness (e.g., Brown & LloydJones, 2006;Cohen & Carr, 1975;Courtois & Mueller, 1981;Light et al, 1979;Semmler & Brewer, 2006;Winograd, 1981) can transfer over to memory for names, which is consistent with previous findings (e.g., Bruyer & Courvoisier, 1990;Pantelis et al, 2008;Valentine & Moore, 1985) and the contention that distinct items prompt elaborative encoding at the time of learning (e.g., Brandt et al, 2006;Hirshman, et al, 1989;Schmidt, 1991). The results also revealed that monitoring faceÁ name associations is sensitive to facial distinctiveness.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…While this may seem to undermine the possibility that the distinctiveness of a face or name can modulate the learning and retrieval of its associated name or face, these models may in fact be able to explain distinctiveness effects. 1 In line with this, there are scattered findings in the literature that suggest that distinctiveness can affect associative memory between faces and names (e.g., Bruyer & Courvoisier, 1990;Pantelis, van Vugt, Sekuler, Wilson, & Kahana, 2008). For example, names paired with distinct faces are easier to learn and are more quickly recalled compared with names paired with typical faces (Valentine & Moore, 1995).…”

Section: Nicholas Watier and Charles Collinmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Although theoretical accounts of person identification do not posit any direct links between faces and names (Bruce & Young, 1986;Burton et al, 1990), previous studies have found that distinctiveness can improve performance on tasks of associative memory that involve faces and names (Bruyer & Courvoisier, 1990;Pantelis et al, 2008;Valentine & Moore, 1995). One possible explanation as to how distinctiveness might strengthen faceÁname associations draws on Schmidt's (1991) incongruity hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of distinctiveness on memory and metamemory for face–name associations

Watier

Collin

2012

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the influence of face and name distinctiveness on memory and metamemory for face-name associations. Four types of monitoring judgements were solicited during encoding and retrieval of face-name pairs that contained distinct or typical faces (Experiment 1) or names (Experiment 2). The beneficial effects of distinctiveness on associative memory were symmetrical between faces and names, such that relative to their typical counterparts, distinct faces enhanced memory for names, and distinct names enhanced memory for faces. These effects were also apparent in metamemory. Estimates of prospective and retrospective memory performance were greater for face-name associations that contained a distinct face or name compared with a typical face or name, regardless of whether the distinct item was a cue or target. Moreover, the predictive validity of prospective monitoring improved with name distinctiveness, whereas the predictive validity of retrospective monitoring improved with facial distinctiveness. Our results indicate that distinctiveness affects not only the strength of the association between a face and a name, but also the ability to monitor that association.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Nicholas Watier and Charles Collinmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of distinctiveness on memory and metamemory for face–name associations

Watier

Collin

2012

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, the distance between these two agents in the matrix was reduced by 1. Previous studies have used similar methodologies to gauge participant similarity ratings of visual stimuli (e.g., Kahana & Bennett, 1994;Pantelis, van Vugt, Sekuler, Wilson, & Kahana, 2008).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the mental space of autonomous intentional agents

Pantelis

Feldman

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to infer the intentions of other agents on the basis of their motion is a critical psychological faculty. In the present study, we examine a key question underlying this process, namely: What are the psychologically natural categories of intentional agents and actions? To investigate this question empirically, we use displays containing a number of autonomous, independently programmed agents moving about a two-dimensional environment and interacting with one another. Each agent behaves according to its own simple program, controlled by a small number of parameters that define its "personality." We probe participants' impressions of the similarities among the behaviors of the various agents, and then use multidimensional scaling in an attempt to recover the subjective mental space of agent types. An important variable underlying this space turns out to be a parameter that determines how the agent reacts to a nearby agent at one critical distance. A follow-up experiment suggests that variation along this parameter ultimately contributes to modulating a more fundamental perceptual dimension that reflects how "hostile" or "friendly" the agents appear to be.

show abstract

“…The advantages of using this face set are that, although the face stimuli are well-controlled, they still can be identified with high accuracy (Wilson et al, 2002), and it is possible to measure their inter-item similarity precisely. Moreover, the face stimuli are realistic enough to generate strong responses in the fusiform face area (Loffler et al, 2005), and we have previously shown how their similarity structure affects recognition memory performance (van Vugt et al, submitted) and the learning of name–face associations (Pantelis et al, 2008). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracranial electroencephalography reveals two distinct similarity effects during item recognition

Vugt¹,

Schulze‐Bonhage²,

Sekuler³

et al. 2009

Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral studies of visual recognition memory indicate that old/new decisions reflect both the similarity of the probe to the studied items (probe-item similarity) and the similarities among the studied items themselves (list homogeneity). Recording intracranial electroencephalography from 1,155 electrodes across 15 patients, we examined the oscillatory correlates of probe-item similarity and homogeneity effects in short-term recognition memory for synthetic faces. Frontal areas show increases in low-frequency oscillations with both probe-item and item-item similarity, whereas temporal lobe areas show distinct oscillatory correlates for probe-item similarity and homogeneity in the gamma band. We discuss these frontal low-frequency effects and the dissociation in the temporal lobe in terms of recent computational models of visual recognition memory.

show abstract

Why are some people’s names easier to learn than others? The effects of face similarity on memory for face-name associations

Cited by 30 publications

References 55 publications

The effects of distinctiveness on memory and metamemory for face–name associations

The effects of distinctiveness on memory and metamemory for face–name associations

Exploring the mental space of autonomous intentional agents

Intracranial electroencephalography reveals two distinct similarity effects during item recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About