July 2013
Volume 13, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2013
Featural and Configural Processing Use the Same Spatial Frequencies: A Human Observer vs. Model Observer Comparison
Author Affiliations
  • Charles Collin
    School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
  • Stéphane Rainville
    VizirLabs Inc.
  • Nicholas Watier
    Department of Psychology, Laurentian University
  • Isabelle Boutet
    School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
Journal of Vision July 2013, Vol.13, 105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/13.9.105
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Charles Collin, Stéphane Rainville, Nicholas Watier, Isabelle Boutet; Featural and Configural Processing Use the Same Spatial Frequencies: A Human Observer vs. Model Observer Comparison. Journal of Vision 2013;13(9):105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/13.9.105.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Previous work has shown mixed results regarding the role of different spatial frequency (SF) ranges in featural and configural processing of faces. Some studies suggest no special role of any given band for either type of processing, while others suggest that low SFs principally support configural analysis. Here we approach this issue by comparing human performance when making featural and configural discriminations to that of a model observer algorithm doing the same task. We find that human performance, measured in terms of accuracy, peaks at around 10 cycles/face regardless of whether featural or configural manipulations are being detected. We also find that accuracy peaks in the same part of the spectrum regardless of which feature is manipulated (i.e., eyes, nose, or mouth). Conversely, model observer performance, measured in terms of white noise tolerance, peaks at approximately 5 cycles/face, and this value again remains roughly constant regardless of the type of manipulation and feature manipulated. The ratio of the model's noise tolerance to a derived equivalent noise tolerance value for humans peaks around 10 cycles/face, similar to the accuracy data. These results provide evidence that the human performance maxima at 10 cycles/face are not due simply to the physical characteristics of face stimuli, but rather arise due to an interaction between available information and human perceptual processing.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.