Faces Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Why is face processing important in developmental psychology?

A

Faces are complex and dynamic stimuli that are salient to infants.
Identifying different people and recognising faces as the same person with a different expression or from a different angle retired fine discrimination within and between people.
Faces have great social importance.

Key theme pervasive to theories, data and methods in developmental psychology is whether developmental changes are domain-general or domain-specific.
Question infant’s sensitivity to salient stimuli: people’s faces.
Investigating babies’ early biases towards human faces and emotional expressions combined with later changes in face processing abilities helps to evaluate the innateness and construction of social cognition.
There is evidence to suggest that children with autism process faces differently.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How do adults process faces?

A

Face-responsive neurons that fire more to face than non-face stimuli have been found in the temporal and frontal cortex of monkeys. Indicative of specificity.
Using fMRI, face-responsive brain activation in humans has been found in the fusiform gyrus which is activated more to face than non-face stimuli and allows them to recognise faces in more detail than similarly complex inanimate objects.
Adults can detect faces in less than 100 milliseconds.
Adults with acquired prosopagnosia are unable to recognise familiar faces and it is specifically associated with the fusiform gyrus. They become reliant on the less sensitive object-recognition system to recognise faces. Represents a double dissociation as it shows that the two functions are localised in different areas of the brain.
Faces are treated differently by the brain than any other stimuli.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is a domain- specific learning?

A

Humans learn different types of information differently and have distinctions within the brain for many of these domains.
Infants have specific neural circuits that are sensitive to face-like configurations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is domain-general learning?

A

born with mechanisms that exist to support and guie learning on a broad level regardless of the type of information being learned e.g starts off with the development of general functions related to perception and memory, and gradually refines into specialised facial recognition mechanisms over exposure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What face skills do neonates have?

A

Seems to be some representational bias that the neonate brings to the learning situation for faces - Karmiloff-Smith (2006)
The classic evidence to support this is that neonates like to look at faces.
However it could be argued that this is just because faces are complex and dynamic stimuli so are interesting to look at so that a more general principle is at play.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What did Johnson’s (1991) studies about infants’ face preferences find?

A

Experiment 1
Tested 24 neonates who were 30 minutes old.
Used a tracking procedure measuring head and eye turns in response to three schematic stimulii.
Measured the degrees of angle that the neonates turned their head, indicative of them tracking the stimulus.
Conditions: face-like stimuli, scrambled face, blank stimuli.
Results were consistent with the hypothesis that faces are special stimulus.
Head and eye turns were both greatest for the face-like stimuli and showed more interest in the scrambled stimuli than the blank stimuli.
The stimuli have too many differences to conclude that it is because faces are special stimuli.
Experiment 2
Used neonates of a similar age as before but with some additional conditions.
4 Schematic stimuli: face, top heavy dot configuration of a face, inverse dot configuration of face, linear scrambled face.
No effect on head turn.
For eye tracking, it was found that babies track onger to face stimuli rather than the inverse and linear stimuli.
Looked at the face somewhat longer than the configuration but no statistics were used in the official analysis.
It was concluded that neonates are more interested in faces than other stimuli even when the saliency and amount of information is the same.
Across studies, differential attention shown to face-like stimuli by neonates.
Further consistent evidence that faces are special stimuli.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Reid et al.’s (2017) study into fetal face preferences find?

A

Studied 39 fetuses in the third trimester of development - eyes open.
Face-like or inverted stimuli were projected across the maternal abdomen, moving across the fetal visual field five times.
Measured the number of fetal head turns in response to stimuli by coding using ultrasounds.
Found that there were more looks towards stimuli that were face-like and this higher level of engagement is consistent with the hypothesis that faces are special stimuli.
Face preference by neonates seems to replicate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the discontinuity in development in face preference?

A

There is a reported decline in face preference between 1-2 months (Johnson et al, 1991)
This preference is found to reemerge at 2-3 months.
This is consistent with the view that infants gradually construct representations of faces over the first few months of life.
However it is a surprising contradiction that the preference should come and go.
This has been explained as a reflection of two different systems
System 1: governs the behaviour of younger infants.
There is a period of decline in system 1 as system 2 develops.
System 2: governs the behaviour of older infants.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is Johnson and Morton’s (1991 ) two process model for development of face processing?

A

Process 1 CONSPEC: the subcortical visuomotor pathway is responsible for preferential tracking of faces in newborns
similar to fixed action patterns - which are species specific behavioural sequences that occur because of a neural network.
Suggestion that this region of the brain receives input only from ovals with inverted triangles.
Predisposes infants to be interested in faces and to attend to them which fuels the development of process 2, which in turn may inhibit process 1.
Process 2 CONLERN: adult-like cortical pathways specialised for faces emerge over time as a consequence of experience.
Suggestion that the stage 1 bias for inverted triangles causes the brain region to receive only face-like input and the region gradually becomes specialised for faces.
Thus there is a gradual emergence of a face area in the brain.
Faces are special because infants show preference over other non-face-like objects and these preferences are directed by the face-specific processing mechanisms CONSPEC and CONLERN.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the problems with CONSPEC?

A

Limited functionality of conspec may struggle to deal with the data supporting newborn’s preference for attractive faces (Slater et al., 2000) and a direct gaze over averted gazes (Farroni et al., 2002).
Compounded faces become more symmetrical as you average more of them together and are considered to be more attractive. Babies prefer averaged faces to more unusual ones.
Thus faces judged by adults as more attractive (note can’t project concept of attractiveness onto neonates) are looked at for longer by neonates.
However this is only true for upright faces and internal features seem to be important.
Not consistent with conspec, suggests more detail is processed than just an inverted triangle.
But it does support that top heavy stimuli are important.
Gaze experiments used photos of faces where gaze was either direct (at child) or averted.
They found that babies spend longer looking at a face with a direct gaze than if the same face had an averted gaze.
This is evidence of fine tuned processing which contradicts the very simplified discrimination conspec argues for.
But it can still be argued that this is not face specific (domain-specific) but domain-general processing.
Moreover there is more evidence to suggest that the preference is for top-heavy configurations as opposed to specifically face configuration.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did Cassia et al.,’s (2004) study into infants preference for top-heavy stimuli find?

A

Investigated whether the preference for top-heavy configurations translates to non-schematic images of faces.
Found preference for an upright face over the same face inverted.
Scrambled the features of the same face and found a preference for the top-heavy configuration over bottom-heavy configuration.
Found no significant difference in preference for upright face or top-heavy configuration.
This suggests that newborns show preferences for top-heavy configurations but it is not specific to faces.
This appears to support the conspec mechanism of a bias to face prototype.
May be a more general perceptual bias that is not face specific at all.
A two-process theory may not be needed to explain processing of faces.
Data is also consistent with gradual development of a single mechanism reflecting an immature adult system.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Are neonates sensitive to humanness?

A

Heron-Delaney et al. (2011)
Investigate whether neonates are sensitive to humanness.
2 day neonates shown image of a human face and another of a non-human primate face
Showed a preference for the human face
Could indicate a special interest in human faces or something more basic.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How did Giorgio et al. (2002) critique and respons to Heron-Delaney’s (2011) study?

A

Studied 24 infants, 72 hours old
Controlled for lower level perceptual factors between the two images such as contrast, luminance and low spatial frequency
Experiment 1:
Found that there was no looking preference therefore contradicting previous findings
Experiment 2:
Repeated the experiment, adding a habituation phase
found that the babies can discriminate between the two classes of stimuli.
Experiment 3:
Compared looking preference for inverted and upright monkey faces
Babies looked longer at the upright faces, just as they had with human faces.

Conclusions
From this we can conclude that neonates preferences are not human-specific in the first week of life.
Neonates can discriminate the stimuli.
Controlling perceptual factors removes any preference for human face over primate face.
Suggestive that monkey faces are processed in the same way and the same effect of inversion is observed which is further evidence to support the hypothesis of a bias towards a top-heavy prototype.
Human faces do become special to infants.
Limited by the fact that only isolated faces or face-like schematic stimuli have been used but this is not representative of how they are viewed in the real world (Jayareaman et al. 2017)
Need to do more situated experiments to represent the complex input of faces.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Kelly et al. (2019)

A

Studied 241 infants who were 3-12 months old.
Monitored the eye movements of babies as they viewed a room where a person was either present or absent OR salient and not salient.
Machine image analysis enabled researchers to capture salience such as contrast.
Faces were classified as detected if the fist saccadic eye movement post-stimulus onset was to the face and was not detected if they were never looked at.
Results showed that more infants first looks were to faces than any other equivalently salient areas of interest.
Salient faces were more detected than non-salient faces.
Babies attend to faces regardless of silence, despite varying spatial location, small visual angle, inconspicuous sclera and much competing information.
Impressive face detection indiciating that infants may be better than previous studies concluded.
Further highlights how new technologies such as eye tracking can improve the precision of conclusions.

Conclusions
Infants are interested in faces from the outset and evidence that they are treated differently
This preference is perhaps driven by the unusual/ unique perceptual characteristics of faces, not face-specific or even species-specific)
A dual process model has been proposed to account for these changes CONSPEC-CONLERN
Face processing becomes increasingly specialized
The commitment seems to be driven by experience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What did Sugita’s (2008) studies into experience based learning find?

A

Separated 10 monkeys from their monkeys at birth.
The monkeys were not exposed to facs for a set time period of either 6, 12 or 24 months.
Then tested their looking preference to human faces, monkey faces and objects.
Found that the primates were interested in faces despite having no experience of faces, but this preference was not species specific.
Following the period of face deprivation they were either exposed to human faces or monkey faces.
One month of human experience led to human preference and one month of monkey experience led to monkey preference.
These preferences were maintained for at least 12 months post deprivation.
This is strong evidence of experienced-based learning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Pascalis et al. (2002)

A

Studied adults, 6 month olds and 9 month olds
Used a visual paired comparison paradigm
Measured discrimination through looking preference
Habituated to one face
Investigated whether they developed a novelty preference to a new face.
Experiment 1:
Two different human faces
Experiment 2:
Two different monkey faces
Adults show novelty preference in the human test phase but not the monkey test phase
9 month olds show a similar pattern with longer looking times for the novel human face but no difference in looking times for the monkey faces.
6 month olds’ looking times reveal novelty preferences to both human and monkey faces.
This suggests 6 month olds are better at discriminating monkey faces than 9 month olds and adults.
Further experiments (2005)
Infants exposed to monkey faces between 6 and 9 months of age maintained the ability to discriminate monkey faces at 9 months

17
Q

What is perceptual narrowing?

A

Infants improve at dealing with stimuli that are meaningful for the environment while at the same time lose the ability to deal with stimuli that are irrelevant to the environment.
Perceptual biases to look at faces provide input into the system.
Experience with the input drives perceptual learning so that infants get better at processing stimuli they are often exposed to as this is needed to understand their world.
If infants are often exposed to human faces they will exhibit perceptual narrowing to human faces so they get better at processing human faces at the cost of becoming worse at processing other species’ faces.
However this is not exclusive to human faces, if exposed to monkey faces they will be better at processing those, or both.
This is indicative of both plasticity and experience-based learning
Thus perceptual narrowing is experience dependent.
However Sugita’s experiment suggests that there are limits to this plasticity as looking preferences were carried by the initial block of exposure.

18
Q

What is the other-race effect (ORE)?

A

Human adults are expert at recognising faces but susceptible to errors when the target face is from an unfamiliar racial group. This is the other race effect (ORE).
This can be explained in part by experience.
Each individuals’ face prototype is an average of all the faces they have experienced and is unique to that individual.
Can be observed in infants to investigate learning from experience.

19
Q

Kelly et al. (2005)

A

Visual preference task
Images of different face classes were paired.
All the participants tested were caucasian
Neonates exhibited no looking preference and spent 50% of the time looking at each image respectively.
3 month olds looked to caucasian faces for 60% of the time and 40% to other races. Showed no difference when two caucasian faces were paired.
Concluded that there is no preferential looking present in the first days of life but that this emerges by 3 months.
Supports the idea of a broad and unspecified face processing system at birth.
Early predominant exposure to one race (usually their own) tunes facial prototype to own-race dimensions.
This tuning leads to a preference to look towards own-race faces as more familiar stimuli.
Need to investigate infants in more heterogeneous environments.

20
Q

Kelly et al. (2007)

A

Investigating discrimination
Habituated to a face in one orientation
Shown a test pair that differed in orientation
Test pair contained novel face and familiar face
Repeated for Africa, Asian, Middle Eastern and Caucasian stimuli.
All the infants studied were caucasian
The pattern of novelty preferences by face type varied across ages.
3 months showed novelty preferences across all four conditions
6 month olds showed novelty preference for chinese and caucasian faces only
9 month olds showed novelty preferences for caucasian faces only
From this we can conclude that there is no other-race effect at 3 months, partial ORE at 6 months and complete at 9 months.
Important to note that this is modifiable.
Consistent with perceptual narrowing account
Early predominant exposure to own race tunes facial prototype to own-race dimensions
This tuning leads to a preference to look toward own-race faces as a more familiar class of faces
As a result, superior recognition and discrimination develops for faces within own racial group/ more correct to say perceptual experience.

21
Q

Kelly et al. (2010)

A

Investigates the cultural effects on adult eye movements and whether these are social norms or perceptual preferences.
Studies using western participants have found the typical scan pattern of people looking at faces focused on the eyes and mouth.
However south asian observers’ scan patterns focus most to the nose region.
If a human face is subbed with a sheep face the same scan path is observed.
Then repeated using greebles which are an invented category of novel objects which either differ from each other with a small number of common configurations.
Individuals can become expert at telling them apart after habituation
Culturally different scan patterns carry to greebles.
Perceptual preference as it is not influenced by the presence of other people but the result of perceptual tuning from experience of south asian faces.

22
Q

Wheeler et al. (2011)

A

Studied caucasian infants 184-300 days old.
Observed the viewing patterns for 30 seconds when presented with caucasian and black african faces.
Subsequently examined the areas of interest.
Found that for own race only, interest in eyes increases with age while interest in mouths decreases (interest in noses is unchanged).
Repeated the study with chinese infants 122-284 days old.
Observed their viewing patterns for 30 seconds when presented with chinese and caucasian faces.
Subsequently examined areas of interest.
For own race, interest in noses increases with age, for other race, nose interest declines with age.

23
Q

What is the link between perception and culture.

A

Cultural differences in scanning patterns in adults are not specific to faces and not simply the result of social norms.
In infants, scanning patterns reflect attention being directed to parts of the face that promote the most meaningful information in that environment.
Once adopted for faces this scanning pattern for identification is extended to other races faces and non-race stimuli.

24
Q

What is autism and does it affect face processing?

A

Cultural differences in scanning patterns in adults are not specific to faces and not simply the result of social norms.
In infants, scanning patterns reflect attention being directed to parts of the face that promote the most meaningful information in that environment.
Once adopted for faces this scanning pattern for identification is extended to other races faces and non-race stimuli.
There is a large evidence base to suggest that people with autism process faces differently
Two explanations for differences in face processing.
Social hypothesis: reduced interest in, or motivation to, process faces (domain specific).
Non-social hypothesis: difference in general processing (domain-general)
Evidence is mixed and contradictory.

25
Q

Ewing et al. 2013

A

Emphasise the methodological weaknesses of previous studies.
In order for a study to argue for face-specific differences it must fulfil the following criteria (that should apply to all studies)
Establish a statistical interaction between face and non-face conditions
Include a non-face condition of comparable difficulty and complexity
Use a large sample of participants in order to account for the heterogeneity that exists amongst the population.
Majority of studies into autism fail to meet these criteria and therefore the validity of the research indicating that autistic children process faces differently should be questioned.
Experiment
Tested 40 children with autism and 40 neurotypical control children
Shown a spectrum with stimulus A at one end and a different stimulus B at another, the two images are gradually morphed into each other in the centre.
This is done with two cars and two faces and two inverted faces across a discrimination and memory task.
If the social hypothesis is correct then children with autism should show differences in processing faces compared to cars and inverted faces for both the discrimination and memory task.
Discrimination task: must choose which of two faces a target face looks more like. It will be an unequal combination of both e.g 60% A, 40%B/
Memory task:
study phase: 10 images shown for 300ms each
Test phase: shown 10 memories images and 10 novel images for 200ms each and must identify which have been seen before.
For both tasks neurotypical children outperformed children with autism but there was no interaction with condition, the difference was the same across all stimuli and tasks.
No evidence for face-selective processing difficulties.
Overarching general processing difference in perception that impacts how faces are processed but extends beyond them to many other stimuli.

Conclusion
Contrary to the social account, there is no evidence for selective face processing deficit
The data is consistent with more general processing differences that impact on face processing, but also extend beyond it.
Reduced social motivation is unlikely to be the sole explanation of differences in face processing in autism.
There is evidence that aspects of face processing might be different in people with autism, but many questions remain.
Need to find if the differences are domain and process specific
Need to find the underlying casual mechanism at play
More data undoubtedly needed.

26
Q

Weigelt et al. (2013)

A

Oppose Ewing and supports the overall view of previous literature that there is a primary impairment in face processing in children with ASD
Front cross-section of a car can appear face-like and may therefore be perceived in the same way so Ewing’s experimental stimuli were not distinct enough for his conclusions to be valid.
Experiment
Studied 50 children with ASD and 50 neurotypical children
Memory task and perception task
4 different visual categories: face, car side profile, bodies and places.
Found memory deficits in face and body stimuli in children with ASD compared with neurotypical children and that there is a correlation with greater severity of ASD and increased memory deficits
There was a main effect of category but no main task effect
This supports the conclusion that deficits in perception are categorically driven (non-social) rather than socially driven.
Indicates that there is a significant deficit for face memory but not perception
Face recognition deficits are both domain specific to faces and process specific to memory.
Validifies the criticism that the front view of cars look like faces and are therefore processed in the same way.
Despite methodological limitations, previous literature is correct in identifying a face specific processing limitation in children with ASD but this needs to be confirmed with further methodologically sound studies.

27
Q

Johnson (2005)

A

Paper regarding the neuroscience behind face processing
fMRI, neuropsychology and electrophysiology have evidenced a face detection pathway in the subcortex that modulates responses to faces and other social stimuli.
People with ASD are able to identify details but can’t process them meaningfully to identify people well - they show a bias towards featural rather than configural processing.
Postmortem and neuroanatomical MRI studies of ASD patient’s brains reveal abnormalities in the amygdala and cortex which suggests there could be early disruptions in the social brain due to inappropriate activation.
This ultimately prevents the development of the subcortical face-processing pathway.
This could alter development so that facial processing is less tuned and results in circuits becoming specialised to features rather than holistic processing.
MEG studies found that the face-processing pathway that showed specificity for faces in the control group evokes an unusual response in individuals with ASD.
This may unite the separate domain-specific and process-specific deficits observed in people with ASD.

28
Q

Theories of development

A

Domain-specific (perception is the domain)
Faces become domain-specific but can argue that it starts as domain-general
Developing modularity
Domain-general
Innately-specified
Experience-driven
Human infants are particularly attracted to faces
The basis of these early biases might be grounded in perceptual characteristics rather than anything specifically social
Specialisation and refinement of these early skills depends on experience