Essay
is facial recognition special
- Course
- Institution
2:1 essay on whether facial recognition is special
[Show more]
2 reviews
By: ciraepic • 1 year ago
By: loulou80 • 2 year ago
Seller
Follow
jaderampasad
Reviews received
Content preview
33482705Many researchers have argued facial recognition is special, with cognitive and
neuroanatomical differences from object recognition. Bruce and Young‘s model (1986)
proposed eight components, based on first structurally encoding the face to generate
descriptions. For familiar faces, we analyse structure to generate personal information,
including their name. For unfamiliar faces, we examine emotional cues, speech and use
specific features for recognition. These processes all involve the cognitive system, using
prior knowledge (e.g., age, hair colour) to aid recognition. This emphasises the importance
of recognising faces, crucial as our main form of identifying familiar/unfamiliar individuals and
distinguishing faces with similar features, even if physicality is altered (Eysenck & Keane
2015).
Psychopathological evidence of facial recognition being unique comes from studying
prosopagnosia patients, with impaired ability to identify faces (Barton, Corrow and
Dalrymple, 2016) but not necessarily objects (Eysenck & Keane 2015). Neuroimaging has
found the fusiform face area (FFA) activated during facial recognition, as oppose to other
stimuli (Kanwisher and Yovel 2006). Qualitatively different information processing appears
from the Thatcher illusion and the inversion-effect, presenting that inverted faces are harder
to recognise, due to holistic processing (Etchells 2016). Therefore, there is evidence that
facial recognition is special, however, is this just expertise?
Face-inversion studies emphasise qualitatively different information processing, by
highlighting how holistic processing may be used more with faces than objects. For example,
Van Belle (2010) studied 16 participants, viewing an upright or inverted face for 1s, later
replaced with 2 faces in the same orientation. Trials had either fully visible faces, a mask
covering one feature, or only one feature visible (window condition). When inverted, all
conditions showed slowed reaction times, highlighting that faces are harder to identify when
inverted as we cannot process it holistically. The mask condition, also limiting holistic
processing, caused accuracy to fall by 9.5%, further highlighting facial recognition as holistic.
However, Diamond and Carey (1986) found that expertise affects recognition. Dog experts
and novices were shown inverted or upright human and dog faces, then two distractors of
two different breeds. All participants showed face-inversion effects but dog experts had large
inversion-effects for dogs, therefore facial recognition may not be special or use different
processes, because it also applies to object expertise.
Van Belle (2010) highlighted that we distinguish similarities via facial configuration, finding
only a 1.5% decrease in accuracy for the window condition, supporting the configural model
of object recognition, showing facial recognition as special because faces are processed
configurally rather than an assembly of features. Additionally, Thompsons (1980) thatcher
illusion discovered that inverting Thatcher’s eyes and mouth goes unnoticed when the photo
is inverted, despite the grotesque look when upright (as cited in Etchells 2014), further
supporting facial recognition as special due to facial configuration.
However, we may use a similar process for objects, for example, Biederman (1987)
proposes that object recognition occurs by making distinctions between contingent parts
known as geons (Eysenck & Keane 2015).
Favelle, Hayward, Burke and Palmisano (2006) presented participants with standard objects
before showing configural, shape and switch changes, participants then indicated whether it
was the same as the standard. Configural changes showed faster detection and accuracy,
suggesting that configural information is first processed for object recognition, further
showing facial recognition is not special as this occurs with objects.
, 33482705
Prosopagnosia patients, with impaired facial but not object recognition (Eysenck and Keane
2015), proposes psychopathological evidence that the processing is dissimilar with different
mechanisms. Busigny (2010), studied patient GG, with good facial recognition before an
accident, but now shows impairments. Busigny provided GG with items from several
categories (e.g., animals/man-made objects), he correctly named 259/260 items, showing no
object recognition impairments, similar to non-prosopagnosic controls. However,
neuropsychological tests, including matching faces in different points-of-view and lighting
(37/54), encoding new faces (52/96) and identifying celebrities (26/40), showed GG’s
impairment in all tasks, highlighting facial recognition as special as impairment is restricted
to faces, showing a double dissociation.
Associative agnosia additionally emphasises a distinction. McCarthy and Warrington (1986),
studied patient FRA, appearing to have impaired object recognition, failing to recognise or
name any objects on the ‘Graded Difficulty Naming’ or ‘Oldfield Pictures’ tests, even failing to
identify named objects, match functionally identical objects or do real-life tasks like setting
the table, as he cannot distinguish objects. However, facial recognition appears special as
FRA still had relatively good ability to recognise celebrities (19/30), reflecting the possible
use of different mechanisms, shown by differences in associative agnosia and
prosopagnosia patients.
One explanation for these facial impairments is related to struggling holistically (Avidan,
Tanzer & Behrmann 2011). Patient, LH, alongside normal subjects were presented with an
upright or inverted unfamiliar face, followed by another image, where participants stated
whether they matched. Despite slower abilities in matching faces in both trials, LH did
significantly better with inverted faces, unlike controls, emphasising no face-inversion effect
but an impaired face-specific processor for upright faces (Farah et al 1993). Therefore, LH
does not perceive faces holistically, hence why it is special and why prosopagnosics have
difficulty.
However, some argue that facial recognition just distinguishes members of the same
category but object recognition involves identifying relevant object categories, therefore,
facial recognition may not be special but a harder, general skill (Eysenck & Keane 2015).
Neuroimaging had additionally provided evidence by studying the FFA, possibly damaged
within prosopagnosics, giving evidence that this may be specialized in facial recognition
(Tranel & Denburg 2009). Barton (2002) studied five prosopagnosics asked to distinguish
faces, where the spatial configuration of features was altered. 4/5 patients had lesions in the
right FFA and were significantly more impaired in discriminating changes, providing evidence
that the FFA is important when distinguishing faces.
Evidence additionally supports stronger FFA activation for faces rather than objects.
Downing (2005) studied 12 participants under a fMRI, whilst viewing 20 object categories
(e.g., faces/tools). Domain-specificity appears evident for facial recognition with higher
activation in the right FFA for faces but lower in the left and right parahippocampal place
area, highest for scenes, the left and right extrastriate body area, highest for bodies and the
left middle temporal gyrus tool area, highest for tools, supporting how each area, including
the FFA, responded strongly to its specific category.
However, facial recognition may be more complex, using a network rather than one brain
area. Bouvier and Engel (2006), conducted a meta-analysis of prosopagnosia patients, an
MRI showed the majority with damage to the right occipital face area (OFA) but less showing
damage within the right FFA, highlighting how the OFA may be more involved.
Rezlescu, Constantin, Susilo, & Tirta. (2014) even suggests that participants presented with
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller jaderampasad. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.90. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
64438 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now