Limits...
Developmental changes in analytic and holistic processes in face perception.

Joseph JE, DiBartolo MD, Bhatt RS - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Analytical processing was operationalized as the degree of parallel processing (or no change in RT as a function of greater similarity of features or spatial relations).In adults both 2(nd) order and featural information are incorporated into holistic representations, whereas older children only incorporate 2(nd) order information.Holistic processing was not evident in younger children.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC USA.

ABSTRACT
Although infants demonstrate sensitivity to some kinds of perceptual information in faces, many face capacities continue to develop throughout childhood. One debate is the degree to which children perceive faces analytically versus holistically and how these processes undergo developmental change. In the present study, school-aged children and adults performed a perceptual matching task with upright and inverted face and house pairs that varied in similarity of featural or 2(nd) order configural information. Holistic processing was operationalized as the degree of serial processing when discriminating faces and houses [i.e., increased reaction time (RT), as more features or spacing relations were shared between stimuli]. Analytical processing was operationalized as the degree of parallel processing (or no change in RT as a function of greater similarity of features or spatial relations). Adults showed the most evidence for holistic processing (most strongly for 2(nd) order faces) and holistic processing was weaker for inverted faces and houses. Younger children (6-8 years), in contrast, showed analytical processing across all experimental manipulations. Older children (9-11 years) showed an intermediate pattern with a trend toward holistic processing of 2(nd) order faces like adults, but parallel processing in other experimental conditions like younger children. These findings indicate that holistic face representations emerge around 10 years of age. In adults both 2(nd) order and featural information are incorporated into holistic representations, whereas older children only incorporate 2(nd) order information. Holistic processing was not evident in younger children. Hence, the development of holistic face representations relies on 2(nd) order processing initially then incorporates featural information by adulthood.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Illustration of the experimental paradigm and hypotheses of the present study. (A) Sample featural face pairs (top two rows) that varied across similarity levels. Features that differed for each similarity level are shown in the third row and the fourth row indicates the correct response for a pair (B) sample 2nd order face pairs are shown. Third row indicates the spacing relations that were different (distance of brows to top of head, distance of nose to top of head, distance of mouth to top of head and interocular distance). (C) Hypothetical reaction time is illustrated on the y-axis as a function of degree of similarity. Serial processing is indicated by an increase in RT as a function of similarity (blue line) and parallel processing is indicated by no change in RT as a function of similarity (red line) on sim0–sim3 trials. Identical pairs represent the maximum similarity two faces can share. In this case, holistic representations would lead to a serial exhaustive comparison process (green dotted line).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4528094&req=5

Figure 1: Illustration of the experimental paradigm and hypotheses of the present study. (A) Sample featural face pairs (top two rows) that varied across similarity levels. Features that differed for each similarity level are shown in the third row and the fourth row indicates the correct response for a pair (B) sample 2nd order face pairs are shown. Third row indicates the spacing relations that were different (distance of brows to top of head, distance of nose to top of head, distance of mouth to top of head and interocular distance). (C) Hypothetical reaction time is illustrated on the y-axis as a function of degree of similarity. Serial processing is indicated by an increase in RT as a function of similarity (blue line) and parallel processing is indicated by no change in RT as a function of similarity (red line) on sim0–sim3 trials. Identical pairs represent the maximum similarity two faces can share. In this case, holistic representations would lead to a serial exhaustive comparison process (green dotted line).

Mentions: The goal of the present study is to explore this question further by using a perceptual matching task and parametrically varying featural and 2nd order configural information (Figures 1 and 2). Importantly, the same perceptual processing will be examined in another class of objects (houses) which are well equated to the face stimuli in terms of the type of information manipulated and the level of differentiation required. In addition, the analyses will control for performance differences across adults, older children (9–12 years of age) and younger children (6–8 years of age) by using baseline performance as a covariate.


Developmental changes in analytic and holistic processes in face perception.

Joseph JE, DiBartolo MD, Bhatt RS - Front Psychol (2015)

Illustration of the experimental paradigm and hypotheses of the present study. (A) Sample featural face pairs (top two rows) that varied across similarity levels. Features that differed for each similarity level are shown in the third row and the fourth row indicates the correct response for a pair (B) sample 2nd order face pairs are shown. Third row indicates the spacing relations that were different (distance of brows to top of head, distance of nose to top of head, distance of mouth to top of head and interocular distance). (C) Hypothetical reaction time is illustrated on the y-axis as a function of degree of similarity. Serial processing is indicated by an increase in RT as a function of similarity (blue line) and parallel processing is indicated by no change in RT as a function of similarity (red line) on sim0–sim3 trials. Identical pairs represent the maximum similarity two faces can share. In this case, holistic representations would lead to a serial exhaustive comparison process (green dotted line).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4528094&req=5

Figure 1: Illustration of the experimental paradigm and hypotheses of the present study. (A) Sample featural face pairs (top two rows) that varied across similarity levels. Features that differed for each similarity level are shown in the third row and the fourth row indicates the correct response for a pair (B) sample 2nd order face pairs are shown. Third row indicates the spacing relations that were different (distance of brows to top of head, distance of nose to top of head, distance of mouth to top of head and interocular distance). (C) Hypothetical reaction time is illustrated on the y-axis as a function of degree of similarity. Serial processing is indicated by an increase in RT as a function of similarity (blue line) and parallel processing is indicated by no change in RT as a function of similarity (red line) on sim0–sim3 trials. Identical pairs represent the maximum similarity two faces can share. In this case, holistic representations would lead to a serial exhaustive comparison process (green dotted line).
Mentions: The goal of the present study is to explore this question further by using a perceptual matching task and parametrically varying featural and 2nd order configural information (Figures 1 and 2). Importantly, the same perceptual processing will be examined in another class of objects (houses) which are well equated to the face stimuli in terms of the type of information manipulated and the level of differentiation required. In addition, the analyses will control for performance differences across adults, older children (9–12 years of age) and younger children (6–8 years of age) by using baseline performance as a covariate.

Bottom Line: Analytical processing was operationalized as the degree of parallel processing (or no change in RT as a function of greater similarity of features or spatial relations).In adults both 2(nd) order and featural information are incorporated into holistic representations, whereas older children only incorporate 2(nd) order information.Holistic processing was not evident in younger children.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC USA.

ABSTRACT
Although infants demonstrate sensitivity to some kinds of perceptual information in faces, many face capacities continue to develop throughout childhood. One debate is the degree to which children perceive faces analytically versus holistically and how these processes undergo developmental change. In the present study, school-aged children and adults performed a perceptual matching task with upright and inverted face and house pairs that varied in similarity of featural or 2(nd) order configural information. Holistic processing was operationalized as the degree of serial processing when discriminating faces and houses [i.e., increased reaction time (RT), as more features or spacing relations were shared between stimuli]. Analytical processing was operationalized as the degree of parallel processing (or no change in RT as a function of greater similarity of features or spatial relations). Adults showed the most evidence for holistic processing (most strongly for 2(nd) order faces) and holistic processing was weaker for inverted faces and houses. Younger children (6-8 years), in contrast, showed analytical processing across all experimental manipulations. Older children (9-11 years) showed an intermediate pattern with a trend toward holistic processing of 2(nd) order faces like adults, but parallel processing in other experimental conditions like younger children. These findings indicate that holistic face representations emerge around 10 years of age. In adults both 2(nd) order and featural information are incorporated into holistic representations, whereas older children only incorporate 2(nd) order information. Holistic processing was not evident in younger children. Hence, the development of holistic face representations relies on 2(nd) order processing initially then incorporates featural information by adulthood.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus