Abstract
In a previous study, it was shown that a 50/50 morph of a typical and an atypical parent face was perceived to be more similar to the atypical parent face than to the typical parent face (Tanaka, Giles, Kremen, & Simon, 1998). Experiments 1 and 2 examine face typicality effects in a same/different discrimination task in which typical or atypical faces and their 80%, 70%, 60%, and 50% morphs were presented sequentially (Experiment 1) or simultaneously (Experiment 2). The main finding was that in both modes of presentation, atypical morphs were more poorly discriminated than their corresponding typical morphs. In Experiment 3, typicality effects were extended to the perception of nonface objects; in this instance, it was found that 50/50 morphs of birds and cars were judged to be more similar to their atypical parents than to their typical parents. These results are consistent with an attractor field model, in which it is proposed that the perception of a face or object stimulus depends not only on its fit to an underlying representation, but also on the representation’s location in the similarity space. nt]mis|This research was supported by grants from the James S. McDonnell Foundation (Perceptual Expertise Network) and the National Science and Engineering Research Councils of Canada to J.W.T. and grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the European Science Foundation to O.C.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bartlett, J. C., Hurry, S., &Thorley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 219–228.
Bartlett, M. S. (in press). Information maximization in face processing.Neurocomputing.
Bartlett, M. S., & Tanaka, J. W. (2007).An attractor field model of face representation: Effects of typicality and image morphing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Busey,T. A. (1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing.Psychological Science,9, 476-483.
Corneille, O., Goldstone, R. L., Queller, S., &Potter, T. (2006). Asymmetries in categorization, perceptual discrimination, and visual search for reference and nonreference exemplars.Memory & Cognition,34, 556–567.
Diamond, R., &Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are not special: An effect of expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 107–117.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 178–200.
Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning.Annual Review of Psychology,49, 585–612.
Iverson, P., &Kuhl, P. K. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,97, 553–562.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., &Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection.Cognitive Psychology,16, 243–275.
Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception.Nature Neuroscience,3, 759–763.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density.Psychological Review,85, 445–463.
Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 93–107.
Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 212–228.
Murphy, G., &Brownell, H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 70–84.
Tanaka, J. W. (2001). The entry point of face recognition: Evidence for face expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 534–543.
Tanaka, J. W., Giles, M., Kremen, S., &Simon, V. (1998). Mapping attractor fields in face space: The atypicality bias in face recognition.Cognition,68, 199–220.
Tank, D. W., &Hopfield, J. J. (1987). Collective computation in neuronlike circuits.Scientific American,257, 104–114.
Tarr, M. J., &Gauthier, I. (2000). FFA: A flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise.Nature Neuroscience,3, 764–769.
Tarr, M. J., &Williams, P. (1996).RSVP: A software package for experimental psychology using the Apple Macintosh OS. Providence, RI: Brown University, Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences.
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 161–204.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition.Acta Psychologica,61, 259–273.
Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.
Wolberg, G. (1990).Digital image warping. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Science Society Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanaka, J.W., Corneille, O. Typicality effects in face and object perception: Further evidence for the attractor field model. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 619–627 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193919
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193919