August 2023
Volume 23, Issue 9
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2023
Two faces of holistic face processing: Facilitation and interference underlying holistic processing paradigms
Author Affiliations
  • Haiyang Jin
    Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi
  • William G. Hayward
    Department of Applied Psychology, Lingnan University
  • Olivia S. Cheung
    Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi
Journal of Vision August 2023, Vol.23, 5207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5207
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Haiyang Jin, William G. Hayward, Olivia S. Cheung; Two faces of holistic face processing: Facilitation and interference underlying holistic processing paradigms. Journal of Vision 2023;23(9):5207. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5207.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Holistic processing is a hallmark of face perception. Three paradigms commonly used to measure holistic processing are the part-whole (PW), standard composite face (SCF), and complete composite face (CCF) tasks. In PW, observers show better recognition performance for a feature (e.g., eyes) when it is presented in a face than in isolation. Despite key design differences in SCF and CCF, both tasks show impaired recognition performance when a task-relevant face half (e.g., top) is aligned with a task-irrelevant face half (e.g., bottom) from a different face; the impairment is reduced for misaligned face halves. Nonetheless, conflicting findings on holistic processing have emerged across these tasks, and recent studies showed weak or no correlations in the holistic effects measured in these tasks. We investigated whether the two components of holistic processing, facilitation and interference, might distinguish the effects captured across the three tasks. Specifically, 1) PW may primarily reveal facilitation, 2) SCF may mainly reveal interference, and 3) facilitation and interference may be separated in CCF with a baseline of isolated face half (e.g., Richler et al., 2008), with facilitation as better performance for aligned-congruent than isolated trials, and interference as worse performance for aligned-incongruent trials than isolated trials. Participants (N=455) completed all three tasks online. As expected, the holistic effects were observed in all tasks. Although significant correlations were observed between SCF and CCF effects (r’s≥0.12), neither effect was correlated with the PW effect (r’s≤0.04). Critically, interference in CCF was significantly correlated with SCF (r’s≥.16) but not with PW (r’s≤0.07). Although facilitation was also observed in CCF, it was not significantly correlated with either PW (r’s≤0.09) or SCF (r’s≤0.05). These results suggest that PW, SCF, and CCF capture different aspects of holistic processing. We propose that clarifying influences of facilitation and interference is critical in understanding holistic face processing.

×
×

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.

×