面孔熟悉过程中部件加工与整体加工的区域异步性和眼睛区域特异性

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00861

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

人们对熟悉面孔的识别绩效显著好于陌生面孔。然而, 对于熟悉度提升面孔识别绩效背后的认知加工与信息整合机制, 我们仍然知之甚少。本研究招募了两个班级的大学生(分别为相互接触1个月和相互接触13个月), 操纵被试第一注视点所落的区域(眼睛或嘴巴), 呈现完整面孔、区域部件(regional part, 眼睛或嘴巴)和区域外周(regional periphery, 完整面孔上, 遮挡眼睛或嘴巴后剩余的外周部分), 用延迟匹配任务测量两组学生对同班同学面孔和陌生人面孔的识别绩效。获得四个发现：(1)接触1个月的被试组表现出较弱的熟悉度效应, 接触13个月的被试组表现出较强的熟悉度效应。(2)熟悉面孔的区域部件和区域外周的识别绩效都高于陌生面孔。(3)在面孔熟悉度增加的过程中, 眼睛区域和嘴巴区域表现出区域异步性(regional asynchronization)。(4)眼睛区域在面孔识别中存在特殊的重要性。综上, 实验提示面孔熟悉是一个具有区域异步性的绩效提升累积过程, 以眼睛区域为中心的面孔整体加工在面孔知觉与记忆表征的形成过程中起到关键作用。

关键词: 熟悉面孔, 接触时间, 眼睛区域, 整体加工, 部件加工

Abstract:

People recognize familiar faces more quickly and accurately than unfamiliar faces. Previous studies found that both holistic processing and part-based processing play a role in recognizing familiar faces efficiently. However, familiarization with faces may not happen and be accomplished in a short period of time for both types of processing. Few research has focused on the progress of familiarization with individuals' faces in real life: Did it reach a ceiling-level of recognition in a short period of time (sudden change) or over a long period of time (gradual change)? And what role did part-based processing and holistic processing play in the recognition improvement during face familiarization?
In the current study, we recruited 57 undergraduate students, 30 from one class (Group 1: 20 females, M_age = 18.4, SD = 0.8) and the remaining 27 from another class (Group 2: 18 females, M_age = 19.2, SD = 0.8). They got along with their classmates for 1 month (Group 1) and 13 months (Group 2) of daily interactions, respectively. Three delayed-matching tasks (Whole-face Learning, Regional-part Learning, and Regional-periphery Learning) were used to test the participants' face recognition performance in part-based processing and holistic processing. The “Regional-part” was an eye or the mouth, respectively. The “Regional-periphery” was a face with an eye masked or the mouth masked. In each trial, a fixation point (800 ms) was presented at the center of the screen, then the learning stimulus (500 ms) was presented with the specific part (eye or mouth) at the fixation point location. After that, four whole faces (5000 ms) were displayed on the screen after a blank (1000 ms). The participants were asked to choose the face with the same identity as the learning stimuli.
Results showed: (1) The recognition performance of familiar faces improved with the increase in daily-interaction time. The familiarity effect (the difference between recognizing the classmates and strangers) of participants with 13 months of daily interaction was higher than that of participants with 1 month. (2) The recognition performance of familiar faces was higher than that of unfamiliar faces in the Part Learning task and in the Part-masking Learning task, which indicated that both the part-based processing and holistic processing were enhanced by familiarity. (3) With the increase in face familiarity, the performance of the eye region and mouth region showed regional asynchronization. Participants with 1 month of daily-interaction time showed no familiarity effect in recognizing the region of the eye, but a significant familiarity effect in recognizing the peripheral region of the eye; and they showed significant familiarity effects both in recognizing the region of the mouth and the peripheral region of the mouth. Participants with 13 months showed a familiarity effect in recognizing the region of the eye, and a stronger familiarity effect in recognizing the peripheral region of the eye; and they showed no familiarity effect in recognizing the region of the mouth but a familiarity effect in recognizing the peripheral region of the mouth. (4) For unfamiliar faces (r = 0.412, p = 0.024; r = 0.439, p = 0.022) and familiar faces with 1 month (r = 0.428, p = 0.018) and 13 months daily interaction (r = 0.609, p = 0.001), the performance of recognizing the peripheral region of the eye was positively correlated with the performance of recognizing the whole faces. For familiar faces with 13 months of daily interaction, the performance of recognizing the region of the eye was positively correlated with the performance of recognizing the whole face (r = 0.562, p = 0.002).
The results implied that familiarization of face identity was gradual. Familiarization promoted part-based processing and holistic processing. The improvement of the holistic processing preceded that of the part-based processing. In addition, the improvement in recognizing the eye region and the mouth region showed regional asynchrony during familiarization. Familiar face recognition has eye region specificity. Holistic processing in the eye region plays a key role in the establishment of memory representations of familiar faces. These results suggest that Regional Asynchrony and Eye Region-specificity emerged during the familiarization. New knowledge for understanding the mechanism of face memory representation formation was provided.

Key words: familiar face, daily interaction time, eye region, holistic processing, part-based processing

中图分类号:

B842

王哲, 倪昊, 封丹, 严璘璘, 孙宇浩. (2023). 面孔熟悉过程中部件加工与整体加工的区域异步性和眼睛区域特异性. 心理学报, 55(6), 861-876.

WANG Zhe, NI Hao, FENG Dan, YAN Linlin, SUN Yu-Hao P. (2023). Regional asynchrony and eye region-specificity in part-based processing and holistic processing during face familiarization. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 861-876.

图/表 19

参考文献 49

[1]	Alzueta E., Melcón M., Poch C., & Capilla A. (2019). Is your own face more than a highly familiar face? Biological Psychology, 142, 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.01.018 doi: S0301-0511(18)30196-0 URL pmid: 30738092
[2]	Andrews S., Burton A. M., Schweinberger S. R., & Wiese H. (2017). Event-related potentials reveal the development of stable face representations from natural variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1620-1632. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195851 doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1195851 URL
[3]	Baker K. A., Laurence S., & Mondloch C. J. (2017). How does a newly encountered face become familiar? The effect of within-person variability on adults’ and children’s perception of identity. Cognition, 161, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.012s doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.012 URL
[4]	Bortolon C., & Raffard S. (2018). Self-face advantage over familiar and unfamiliar faces: A three-level meta-analytic approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(4), 1287-1300. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1487-9 doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1487-9 URL
[5]	Bruce V. (1986). Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces. Perception, 15(4), 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1068/p150387 URL pmid: 3822723
[6]	Burton A. M., Wilson S., Cowan M., & Bruce V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10(3), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00144 doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 URL
[7]	Caldara R., Schyns P., Mayer E., Smith M. L., Gosselin F., & Rossion B. (2005). Does prosopagnosia take the eyes out of face representations? Evidence for a defect in representing diagnostic facial information following brain damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(10), 1652-1666. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892905774597254 URL pmid: 16269103
[8]	Cassia V. M., Picozzi M., Kuefner D., & Casati M. (2009). Short article: Why mix-ups don’t happen in the nursery: Evidence for an experience-based interpretation of the other-age effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 1099-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802617654 doi: 10.1080/17470210802617654 URL
[9]	Dalton P. (1993). The role of stimulus familiarity in context- dependent recognition. Memory & Cognition, 21(2), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202735 doi: 10.3758/BF03202735 URL
[10]	DeGutis J., Mercado R. J., Wilmer J., & Rosenblatt A. (2013). Individual differences in holistic processing predict the own-race advantage in recognition memory. PLOS ONE, 8(4), e58253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058253 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058253 URL
[11]	Devue C., & Brédart S. (2011). The neural correlates of visual self-recognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(1), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.007 URL pmid: 20880722
[12]	Dowsett A. J., Sandford A., & Burton A. M. (2016). Face learning with multiple images leads to fast acquisition of familiarity for specific individuals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1017513 doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1017513 URL
[13]	Ge L., Anzures G., Wang Z., Kelly D. J., Pascalis O., Quinn P. C., … Lee K. (2008). An inner face advantage in children’s recognition of familiar peers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.006 URL
[14]	Harrison V., & Hole G. J. (2009). Evidence for a contact- based explanation of the own-age bias in face recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.264 doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.264 URL
[15]	Heisz J. J., & Shore D. I. (2008). More efficient scanning for familiar faces. Journal of Vision, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1167/8.1.9
[16]	Jackson M. C., & Raymond J. E. (2008). Familiarity enhances visual working memory for faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(3), 556-568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.556 doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.556 URL
[17]	Jansari A., Miller S., Pearce L., Cobb S., Sagiv N., Williams A. L., … Hanley J. R. (2015). The man who mistook his neuropsychologist for a popstar: When configural processing fails in acquired prosopagnosia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00390
[18]	Kaufmann J. M., Schweinberger S. R., & Burton A. M. (2009). N250 ERP correlates of the acquisition of face representations across different images. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 625-641. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21080 doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21080 URL pmid: 18702593
[19]	Kikutani M., Roberson D., & Hanley J. R. (2008). What’s in the name? Categorical perception for unfamiliar faces can occur through labeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 787-794. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.787 doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.4.787 URL
[20]	Klatzky R. L., & Forrest F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196998 doi: 10.3758/BF03196998 URL
[21]	Klin A., Jones W., Schultz R., Volkmar F., & Cohen D. (2002). Visual fixation patterns during viewing of naturalistic social situations as predictors of social competence in individuals with autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(9), 809-816. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.809 doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.809 URL pmid: 12215080
[22]	Kramer R. S. S., Manesi Z., Towler A., Reynolds M. G., & Burton A. M. (2018). Familiarity and within-person facial variability: The importance of the internal and external features. Perception, 47(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617725242 doi: 10.1177/0301006617725242 URL pmid: 28803526
[23]	Kuefner D., Macchi Cassia V., Picozzi M., & Bricolo E. (2008). Do all kids look alike? Evidence for an other-age effect in adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 811-817. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.811 doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.811 URL
[24]	Levin D. T., & Beale J. M. (2000). Categorical perception occurs in newly learned faces, other-race faces, and inverted faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(2), 386-401. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205558 doi: 10.3758/BF03205558 URL
[25]	Megreya A. M., & Burton A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 865-876. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433 doi: 10.3758/BF03193433 URL
[26]	Mohr S., Wang A., & Engell A. D. (2018). Early identity recognition of familiar faces is not dependent on holistic processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(10), 1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy079 doi: 10.1093/scan/nsy079 URL pmid: 30247645
[27]	Nemrodov D., Anderson T., Preston F. F., & Itier R. J. (2014). Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing. NeuroImage, 97, 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.042 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.042 URL pmid: 24768932
[28]	Osborne C. D., & Stevenage S. V. (2013). Familiarity and face processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.699077 doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.699077 URL
[29]	Popova T., & Wiese H. (2022). The time it takes to truly know someone: Neurophysiological correlates of face and identity learning during the first two years. Biological Psychology, 170, 108312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108312 doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108312 URL
[30]	Ramon M. (2015). Differential processing of vertical interfeature relations due to real-life experience with personally familiar faces. Perception, 44(4), 368-382. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7909 URL pmid: 26492723
[31]	Ritchie K. L., Kramer R. S. S., Mileva M., Sandford A., & Burton A. M. (2021). Multiple-image arrays in face matching tasks with and without memory. Cognition, 211, 104632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104632 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104632 URL
[32]	Rossion B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 274-289. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.003 pmid: 18396260
[33]	Rossion B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 300-312. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002 pmid: 19747674
[34]	Royer J., Blais C., Barnabé-Lortie V., Carré M., Leclerc J., & Fiset D. (2016). Efficient visual information for unfamiliar face matching despite viewpoint variations: It’s not in the eyes! Vision Research, 123, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.04.004 URL
[35]	Sandford A., & Bindemann M. (2020). Discrimination and recognition of faces with changed configuration. Memory & Cognition, 48(2), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-01010-7 doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-01010-7 URL
[36]	Sugiura M., Mano Y., Sasaki A., & Sadato N. (2011). Beyond the memory mechanism: Person-selective and nonselective processes in recognition of personally familiar faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 699-715. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21469 doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21469 URL pmid: 20350171
[37]	Tanaka J. W., Curran T., Porterfield A. L., & Collins D. (2006). Activation of preexisting and acquired face representations: The N250 event-related potential as an index of face familiarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(9), 1488-1497. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.9.1488 URL pmid: 16989550
[38]	Tanaka J. W., Kiefer M., & Bukach C. M. (2004). A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition, 93(1), B1- B9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011
[39]	Tanaka J. W., & Sung A. (2016). The “eye avoidance” hypothesis of autism face processing. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(5), 1538-1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1976-7 doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1976-7 URL pmid: 24150885
[40]	Towler J., Fisher K., & Eimer M. (2018). Holistic face perception is impaired in developmental prosopagnosia. Cortex, 108, 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.07.019 doi: S0010-9452(18)30236-3 URL pmid: 30165324
[41]	van Belle G., de Graef P., Verfaillie K., Rossion B., & Lefevre P. (2010). Face inversion impairs holistic perception: Evidence from gaze-contingent stimulation. Journal of Vision, 10(5), 10-10. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.5.10 doi: 10.1167/10.5.10 URL pmid: 20616142
[42]	Visconti di Oleggio Castello M., Wheeler K. G., Cipolli C., & Gobbini M. I. (2017). Familiarity facilitates feature- based face processing. Plos One, 12(6), e0178895.
[43]	Wang Z., Chen Y., Liu W., & Sun Y.-H. P. (2022). An eye region-specific cross-dimension covariation enhancement effect in facial featural and configural information change detection. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 236. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00236 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00236 URL
	[王哲, 陈亚春, 刘万鹏, 孙宇浩. (2022). 眼睛区域构型信息与特征信息的跨维共变增益效应及其加工特异性. 心理学报, 54(3), 236.]
[44]	Wang Z., Quinn P. C., Jin H., Sun Y.-H. P., Tanaka J. W., Pascalis O., & Lee K. (2019). A regional composite-face effect for species-specific recognition: Upper and lower halves play different roles in holistic processing of monkey faces. Vision Research, 157, 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.03.004 doi: S0042-6989(18)30047-6 URL pmid: 29653136
[45]	Wang Z., Quinn P. C., Tanaka J. W., Yu X., Sun Y.-H. P., Liu J., … Lee K. (2015). An other-race effect for configural and featural processing of faces: Upper and lower face regions play different roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 06, Article 599. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00559
[46]	White D., Burton A. M., Jenkins R., & Kemp R. I. (2014). Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000009 doi: 10.1037/xap0000009 URL
[47]	Wilcockson T. D., Burns E. J., Xia B., Tree J., & Crawford T. J. (2020). Atypically heterogeneous vertical first fixations to faces in a case series of people with developmental prosopagnosia. Visual Cognition, 28(4), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2020.1797968 doi: 10.1080/13506285.2020.1797968 URL
[48]	Wolf J. M., Tanaka J. W., Klaiman C., Cockburn J., Herlihy L., Brown C., … Phillips R. (2008). Specific impairment of face‐processing abilities in children with autism spectrum disorder using the Let’s Face It! Skills battery. Autism Research, 1(6), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.56 doi: 10.1002/aur.v1:6 URL
[49]	Zimmermann F. G., & Eimer M. (2013). Face learning and the emergence of view-independent face recognition: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia, 51(7), 1320-1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.028 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.028 URL pmid: 23583970

被试	陌生面孔		熟悉面孔
被试	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴
接触1个月的被试组	88.0 (1.4) [85.3, 90.7]	87.9 (1.5) [85.0, 90.8]	92.0 (0.9) [90.1, 93.9]	90.3 (1.1) [88.0, 92.6]
接触13个月的被试组	86.3 (1.4) [83.4, 89.2]	84.5 (1.5) [81.4, 87.6]	94.2 (0.10) [92.2, 96.2]	92.4 (1.2) [90.0, 94.8]

被试	陌生面孔		熟悉面孔
被试	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴
接触1个月的被试组	88.0 (1.4) [85.3, 90.7]	87.9 (1.5) [85.0, 90.8]	92.0 (0.9) [90.1, 93.9]	90.3 (1.1) [88.0, 92.6]
接触13个月的被试组	86.3 (1.4) [83.4, 89.2]	84.5 (1.5) [81.4, 87.6]	94.2 (0.10) [92.2, 96.2]	92.4 (1.2) [90.0, 94.8]

被试	陌生面孔		熟悉面孔
被试	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴
接触1个月的被试组	1440 (50) [1339, 1540]	1388 (45) [1298, 1478]	1360 (42) [1276, 1445]	1352 (45) [1261, 1443]
接触13个月的被试组	1234 (53) [1129, 1340]	1195 (47) [1101, 1290]	1195 (44) [1106, 1284]	1156 (48) [1060, 1252]

被试	陌生面孔		熟悉面孔
被试	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴
接触1个月的被试组	1440 (50) [1339, 1540]	1388 (45) [1298, 1478]	1360 (42) [1276, 1445]	1352 (45) [1261, 1443]
接触13个月的被试组	1234 (53) [1129, 1340]	1195 (47) [1101, 1290]	1195 (44) [1106, 1284]	1156 (48) [1060, 1252]

	陌生面孔		熟悉面孔
	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴	注视眼睛	注视嘴巴
接触1个月的被试组	72.4 (1.9) [68.6, 76.2]	78.5 (1.6) [75.3, 81.8]	75.7 (2.0) [71.7, 79.6]	84.7 (2.0) [80.8, 88.6]
接触13个月的被试组	71.1 (2.0) [67.1, 75.1]	81.4 (1.7) [78.0, 84.8]	78.3 (2.1) [74.1, 82.5]	81.8 (2.1) [77.6, 85.9]