Effects of geometric distortions, Gaussian blur, and contrast negation on recognition of familiar faces

References

• Andrews, T. J., Baseler, H., Jenkins, R., Burton, A. M., & Young, A. W. (2016). Contributions of feature shapes and surface cues to the recognition and neural representation of facial identity. Cortex, 83, 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.08.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baseler, H. A., Young, A. W., Jenkins, R., Burton, A. M., & Andrews, T. J. (2016). Face-selective regions show invariance to linear, but not to non-linear, changes in facial images. Neuropsychologia, 93(A), 76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bauer, R. M. (1984). Autonomic recognition of names and faces in prosopagnosia: A neuropsychological application of the guilty knowledge test. Neuropsychologia, 22(4), 457–469. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.004 doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(84)90040-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bindemann, M., Burton, A. M., Leuthold, H., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2008). Brain potential correlates of face recognition: Geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 535–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00663.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40(5), 625–627. doi: 10.1068/p7008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces – visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 105–116. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01795.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healey, P., & Burton, A. M. (1992). The importance of “mass” in line drawings of faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 619–628. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350060705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 339–360. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 207–218. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., & Langton, S. R. H. (1994). The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces. Perception, 23(7), 803–822. doi: 10.1068/p230803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: The science of face perception. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (2012). Face perception. London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1467–1485. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.800125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2011). Unfamiliar face perception. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnson, & J. V. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2011). Mental representations of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 943–958. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02039.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M., Schweinberger, S. R., Jenkins, R., & Kaufmann, J. M. (2015). Arguments against a “configural processing” account of face recognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 482–496. doi: 10.1177/1745691615583129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 286–291. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10(3), 243–248. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2004). Matching as an index of face familiarity. Visual Cognition, 11(7), 857–869. doi: 10.1080/13506280444000021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collishaw, S. M., & Hole, G. J. (2000). Featural and configurational processes in the recognition of faces of different familiarity. Perception, 29(8), 893–909. doi: 10.1068/p2949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costen, N. P., Parker, D. M., & Craw, I. (1994). Spatial content and spatial quantisation effects in face recognition. Perception, 23(2), 129–146. doi: 10.1068/p230129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin, S. C., & Watt, R. J. (2009). Biological “bar codes” in human faces. Journal of Vision, 9(4), 1–10. doi: 10.1167/9.4.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107–117. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowsett, A. J., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Face learning with multiple images leads to fast acquisition of familiarity for specific individuals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1017513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, H. D., Quayle, A. H., & Young, A. W. (1999). The emotional impact of faces (but not names): Face specific changes in skin conductance responses to familiar and unfamiliar people. Current Psychology, 18(1), 88–97. doi: 10.1007/s12144-999-1018-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, H. D., Young, A. W., & Koenken, G. (1993). Covert face recognition without prosopagnosia. Behavioural Neurology, 6(1), 27–32. doi:10.3233/BEN-1993-6104 doi: 10.1155/1993/295032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29(2), 159–170. doi: 10.1068/p3012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galper, R. E. (1970). Recognition of faces in photographic negative. Psychonomic Science, 19(4), 207–208. doi: 10.3758/BF03328777
   Google Scholar
• Gilad, S., Meng, M., & Sinha, P. (2009). Role of ordinal contrast relationships in face encoding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Stages of America, 106(13), 5353–5358. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812396106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilad-Gutnick, S., Yovel, G., & Sinha, P. (2012). Recognizing degraded faces: The contribution of configural and featural cues. Perception, 41(12), 1497–1511. doi: 10.1068/p7064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffaux, V., & Dakin, S. C. (2010). Horizontal information drives the behavioural signatures of face processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(143). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00143
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goffaux, V., Hault, B., Michel, C., Vuong, Q. C., & Rossion, B. (2005). The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Perception, 34(1), 77–86. doi: 10.1068/p5370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception, 13(5), 505–512. doi: 10.1068/p130505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 330–337. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper, B., & Latto, R. (2001). Cyclopean vision, size estimation, and presence in orthostereoscopic images. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 312–330. doi: 10.1162/105474601300343630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, R. J., Young, A. W., & Andrews, T. J. (2014). Brain regions involved in processing facial identity and expression are differentially selective for surface and edge information. NeuroImage, 97, 217–223. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hole, G. J., George, P. A., & Dunsmore, V. (1999). Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception, 28(3), 341–359. doi: 10.1068/p2622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hole, G. J., George, P. A., Eaves, K., & Rasek, A. (2002). Effects of geometric distortions on face-recognition performance. Perception, 31(10), 1221–1240. doi: 10.1068/p3252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, Z., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2009). Perceptual learning modifies inversion effects for faces and textures. Vision Research, 49(18), 2273–2284. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.06.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itz, M. L., Golle, J., Luttmann, S., Schweinberger, S. R., & Kaufmann, J. M. (2016). Dominance of texture over shape in facial identity processing is modulated by individual abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 369–396. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itz, M. L., Schweinberger, S. R., Schulz, C., & Kaufmann, J. M. (2014). Neural correlates of facilitations in face learning by selective caricaturing of facial shape or reflectance. NeuroImage, 102, 736–747. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C., & Raymond, J. E. (2008). Familiarity enhances visual working memory for faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(3), 556–568. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Stable face representations. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1671–1683. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121(3), 313–323. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. A., & Edmonds, A. J. (2009). Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review. Memory, 17(5), 577–596. doi: 10.1080/09658210902976969
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, J. M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2008). Distortions in the brain? ERP effects of caricaturing familiar and unfamiliar faces. Brain Research, 1228, 177–188. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, J. M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2012). The faces you remember: Caricaturing shape facilitates brain processes reflecting the acquisition of new face representations. Biological Psychology, 89(1), 21–33. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.08.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, R., McManus, C., & Piggot, T. (1990). Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception, 19(4), 531–543. doi: 10.1068/p190531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, R. S. S., Jenkins, R., Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Natural variability is essential to learning new faces. Visual Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2016.1242522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurence, S., Zhou, X., & Mondloch, C. J. (2016). The flip side of the other-race coin: They all look different to me. British Journal of Psychology, 107(2), 374–388. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H. (1996). Line drawings of faces reduce configural processing. Perception, 25(3), 355–366. doi: 10.1068/p250355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognised: The role of configural information in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 513–536. doi: 10.1080/713755889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., & Carbon, C.-C. (2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 19–29. doi: 10.1348/000712605X54794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. B., & Glenister, T. E. (2003). A sideways look at configural encoding: Two different effects of face rotation. Perception, 32(1), 7–14. doi: 10.1068/p3404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. B., & Johnston, R. A. (1997). The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption. Perception, 26(2), 225–227. doi: 10.1068/p260225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone, D. R., Morris, H. H., Kay, M. C., & Levin, H. S. (1982). Prosopagnosia: A double dissociation between the recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 45(9), 820–822. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.45.9.820
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKone, E., & Yovel, G. (2009). Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in features, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 778–797. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 865–876. doi: 10.3758/BF03193433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 69(7), 1175–1184. doi: 10.3758/BF03193954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megreya, A. M., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2013). Matching face images taken on the same day or months apart: The limitations of photo ID. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 700–706. doi: 10.1002/acp.2965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31(5), 553–566. doi: 10.1068/p3339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes, E., & Jenkins, R. (2017). Camera-to-subject distance affects face configuration and perceived identity. Cognition, 165, 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (1999). Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: An application of three-dimensional morphing. Vision Research, 39(18), 3145–3155. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00034-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakover, S. S. (2013). Explaining the face-inversion effect: The face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0388-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47(1), 25-57. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90061-Y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richler, J. J., Mack, M. L., Gauthier, I., & Palmeri, T. J. (2009). Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance. Vision Research, 49(23), 2856–2861. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, K. L., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Learning faces from variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1136656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, K. L., Smith, F. G., Jenkins, R., Bindemann, M., White, D., & Burton, A. M. (2015). Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining the photo-ID paradox. Cognition, 141, 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossion, B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 300–312. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, R., & Sinha, P. (2007). Real-world face recognition: The importance of surface reflectance properties. Perception, 36(9), 1368–1374. doi: 10.1068/p5779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, R., Sinha, P., Biederman, I., & Nederhouser, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35(6), 749–759. doi: 10.1068/p5490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2014). Tolerance for distorted faces: Challenges to a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Cognition, 132(2), 262–268. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J. S., & Collishaw, S. M. (2002). Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. Biologically Motivated Computer Vision, 2525, 245–258. doi: 10.1007/3-540-36181-2_64
   Google Scholar
• Schwaninger, A., Ryf, S., & Hofer, F. (2003). Configural information is processed differently in perception and recognition of faces. Vision Research, 43(14), 1501–1505. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00171-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 904–915. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sergent, J. (1986). Microgensis of face perception. In H. D. Ellis, M. A., Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 17–33). Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sormaz, M., Andrews, T. J., & Young, A. W. (2013). Contrast negation and the importance of the eye region for holistic representations of facial identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(6), 1667–1677. doi: 10.1037/a0032449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, M. L., Storrs, K. R., & Arnold, D. H. (2014). Why the long face? The importance of vertical image structure for biological “barcodes” underlying face recognition. Journal of Vision, 14(8), 1–12. doi: 10.1167/14.8.25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, J. W., & Gordon, I. (2011). Features, configurations, and holistic face processing. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. Johnson, & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception (pp. 177–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79(4), 471–491. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02747.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, M. J., & Townsend, J. T. (2000). Spatial frequencies in short-term memory tasks for faces: A test of three frequency-dependent hypotheses. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 125–142. doi: 10.3758/BF03211581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamashita, W., Kanazawa, S., & Yamaguchi, M. K. (2014). Tolerance of geometric distortions in infant’s face recognition. Infant Behavior and Development, 37(1), 16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145. doi: 10.1037/h0027474
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. W., Newcombe, F., de Haan, E. H. F., Small, M., & Hay, D. C. (1993). Face perception after brain injury: Selective impairments affecting identity and expression. Brain, 116(4), 941–959. doi: 10.1093/brain/116.4.941
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhou, X., & Mondloch, C. J. (2016). Recognizing “Bella Swan” and “Hermoine Granger”: No own-race advantage in recognizing photos of famous faces. Perception, 45(2), 1426–1429. doi: 10.1177/0301006616662046
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, Q., Li, X., Chow, K., & Liu, J. (2009). The part task of the part-spacing paradigm is not a pure measurement of part-based information of faces. PLoS One, 4, e6239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar