Many important questions remain unanswered regarding how we recognize faces. Methodological inconsistencies have contributed to confusion regarding these questions, especially those surrounding three purported face processing mechanisms—featural, configural, and holistic—and the extent to which each play a role in face recognition. The work presented here aims to 1) empirically test the assumption that several face recognition tasks index the same underlying construct(s), and 2) contribute data to a number of ongoing debates concerning the reliability and validity of various methods for assessing integrative (i.e., holistic and/or configural) aspects of face processing.
Experiment 1 tested the assumption that various tasks purporting to measure integrative face processing index the same construct(s). It is important to test this assumption because if these tasks are in fact measuring different things, then researchers should cease interpreting them as interchangeable measures. Using a within-subjects design (N = 223) we compared performance—as reflected by accuracy and reaction time measures, as well as two types of difference scores—across four of the most commonly used integrative face processing tasks: The Partial Composite Face Effect Task, the Face Inversion Effect Task, the Part Whole Effect Task, and the Configural/Featural Difference Detection Task.
Analyses showed that within-task correlations were much stronger than those between-tasks. This suggests that the four conditions within each task are measuring something in common; In contrast, low correlations across tasks suggest that each is measuring something unique. This in turn suggests these tasks should not be seen as assessing the same integrative face-processing construct. Exploratory factor analyses corroborated the correlation data, finding that performance on most conditions loaded onto a single factor in unrotated solutions, but onto separate factors in direct oblimin-rotated solutions.
In Experiment 2, we investigated the question of whether integrative face processing performance is related to face recognition ability. We did this by assessing the degree to which results from four widely-used integrative face processing tasks correlate with a measure of general face recognition ability, The Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). The four integrative processing tasks used in this study only partly overlapped those from in Experiment 1. They were: The Complete Composite Face Effect Task, the Partial Composite Face Effect Task, the Part Whole Effect Task, and the Configural/Featural Difference Detection Task. As with Experiment 1, we used a within-subjects design (N = 260) and analyzed a variety of performance variables across these tasks.
Analyses demonstrated low to moderate positive correlations between performance on the task conditions and performance on the CFMT. This suggests that the constructs the tasks reflect do contribute to face recognition ability to a modest degree. These analyses also replicated parts of Experiment 1, showing weak correlations between tasks. Also similar to Experiment 1, factor analyses generally revealed task conditions loading onto a common first factor in the unrotated factor matrix, but loading separately in the rotated factor solution.
In addition to providing evidence regarding the nature of integrative face processing tasks, the data presented here speak to a number of other questions in this domain. For instance, they contribute to the debate regarding which kinds of difference scores (subtraction-based or regression-based) are more reliable, as well as the reliability of the various tasks used to investigate integrative face processing. In addition, the data inform the debate over whether the Complete or the Partial version of the Composite Face Effect Task is the superior measure of integrative face processing.
In summary, the studies presented here indicate that the previous literature in face recognition needs to be interpreted with care, with an eye to differences in methodology and the problems of low measurement reliability. The various methods used to investigate integrative face processing are not assessing the same thing and cannot be taken as reflecting the same underlying construct.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uottawa.ca/oai:ruor.uottawa.ca:10393/37917 |
| Date | 25 July 2018 |
| Creators | Nelson, Elizabeth |
| Contributors | Collin, Charles |
| Publisher | Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa |
| Source Sets | Université d’Ottawa |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds