Encoding Activity and Face Recognition · TABLE1...

E ncod ing A ctiv ity an d F ace R ecogn ition

C hristia n C o in and G uy T ibe rgh ien

Institu t de Sciences Cogn itives, Lyon, France

A series o f stud ies conducted ove r the past 20 years have explo red the effec ts o f

va r iou s ta sk s on recognition m em ory for faces. M em ory for faces appears be tte r

w hen the s tudy task involv es judgem ents abou t an abs tract tra it ra the r than a

phy sica l feature . T he va riou s si tua tion s in w hich these resu lts w ere ob tain ed raise

im po rtant m e thodo log ica l ques tions rega rding the lea rning cond ition s, w he the r

inc identa l o r in ten tiona l, and th e du ration o f expo su re to the s tim u lus du ring th e

study phase. W e con sid er h ere tw o a ltern ative exp lana tion s for the repo rted results .

O ne conce rns dep th of p ro cessing and the o the r the oppo si tion be tw een com ponen t

and ho list ic pro cess ing . Po ss ib le st ra teg ie s fo r im p roving face recogn ition

pe rfo rm ance a re cons ide red.

INTRODUCTION

W e can read expression from a face presented w ithin 20m s (S im pson &

C randall, 1972) and recogn ise form er schoo lm ates at about a 90% recogn ition

rate 35 years a fter g radua tion (Bahrick , Bahrick , & W ittlinger, 1975). In the past

20 years, num erous stud ies have explo red the influence of encod ing instruc tions

on fac ia l recognition . M ost o f the studies exam ined here , inc lud ing the m ost

recen t (e .g . Terry, 1993), used an experim en ta l parad igm sim ila r to that o f the

p ioneering study reported by B ower and K arlin (1974). S tud ies em ploy ing

adu lts (e.g . B ower & K arlin , 1974 ; C lifford & Prior, 1980 ; M cK elvie , 1991 ;

Patterson & B adde ley , 1977 ; Sporer, 1991 ; W ells & Turtle , 1988 ; W inograd ,

1981) show tha t the requ irem ent fo r persona lity trait judgem ents, such as

likeab ility , y ie ld h igher recogn ition ra tes tha t judgem ent abou t size of a fea ture

or gender. S im ilar patterns of resu lts have been ob tained w ith ch ildren (7 to 14

years o ld : C arey , D iam ond , & W oods, 1980), w ith o lder sub jec ts (50 to 70 years

M E M O R Y , 1 99 7 , 5 (5 ), 5 45 ±56 8

R eq u es ts f o r re pr in ts sh ou ld b e sen t to C h ris tia n C oin , In st itu t de Sc ien ce s C o gn itive s , U nive rs iteÂ

C lau d e B e rn a rd , 8 av en u e R ock e fe lle r, 6 93 73 L y on ceÂdex 08 , F ra n ce .

T h is w ork w as co m plet ed w h ile th e fir st a u tho r w as o n a p os tdo c to ra l fe llow sh ip a t the

M assa chu sett s In s titu te o f T echn o log y , C am b rid g e, M A . P a rts o f th is w ork w e re sup po rte d b y a

Fu lb rig h t g ra n t to the firs t au th o r. W e w o uld l ik e to than k A lan H e in and an an on y m o u s rev iew e r fo r

h elp fu l co m m en ts on an ea rlie r d ra ft o f th is a rti c le , a nd W en dy M cK enz ie and D av id Jam es fo r th e ir

re ad ing of the E ng lish ve rs io n o f th is a rti c le .

Ó 19 9 7 Psy cho lo gy P re ss L td

o ld : W arring ton & A ckroyd, 1975) and w ith am nesic K orsakoff pa tien ts (B iber

e t al., 1981). Th is paper w ill rev iew and eva lua te the various procedures

em ployed in these stud ies.

T here are four categories o f encod ing instructions fo r the study phase of the

experim en ts review ed here :

1 . S tandard instruc tions in w hich sub jects a re to ld on ly that a reten tion test

fo llow s the study phase .

2 . Instruc tions to a ttend to physica l charac teristic s v iew ed d irec tly (e .g .

facia l featu res and accessories like glasses), or inferred (e.g . gender, race, w eight

and he igh t).

3 . Instruc tions to regard globa l aspects o f the face (e .g . expression , shape),

pe rsona lity tra its (e .g . likeab ility and inte lligence). T hese instructions are

som etim es re la ted to identifying activ ities o f the figure (e .g . p rofession, hobby),

o r to relig ious or po litical pre ference .

4 . Instruc tions to choose the m ost d istinctive fac ia l featu re am ong a set of

facia l featu res.

T aken toge ther, the resu lts show that judgem ents o f personality tra its y ie ld

be tte r recogn ition perform ance than those of physical traits. The da ta provided

in Tab le 1 a lso dem onstra te that in ferential judgem ents im prove distingu ish-

ab ility (d ¢ ) am ong them . T he dec ision criterion ( b ), appears unaffec ted by the

encod ing cond itions (see a lso Shapiro & Penrod , 1986) a lthough the da ta

supporting th is conc lusion is sparse . T he faces searched for their m ost d istinctive

physica l fea ture am ong a se t designa ted by the experim en ter were better

rem em bered than those judged w ith respec t to a sing le physica l featu re (C ourtois

& M uel le r, 1 979 ; Sp ore r , 19 91 ; W inograd , 1 981 ). F ina lly , re cogn i tio n

perform ance w as not differen t fo llow ing judgem ents about personality tra its

than after judgem ents abou t the m ost d istinctive fac ial fea ture (D aw & Parkin ,

1981; D effenbacher, Leu , & B row n, 1981; Parkin & G oodw in, 1983 ; Park in &

H ayw ard , 1983 ; W inograd , 1981).

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

B efore a ttem pting an exam ination of the proposed exp lana tions fo r these resu lts

it is im portant to no te the differences in the m ethodo log ies that underlie them . In

som e procedures sub jec ts w ere to ld that a recogn ition test w ould fo llow the

study phase . In o ther experim en ts this info rm ation w as no t g iven . A dditiona lly ,

exposure duration of the target face varies am ong the stud ies. Possib le

consequences of such varia tions m ust be ana lysed . In particu lar, the subjec ts

could adopt a particu lar encod ing strategy w hen they know that a test w ou ld

fo l lo w . A lte rn a tive ly the ir no rm al s tra te gy m ig h t be un a l te red by th e

instruc tions. F ina lly, if d iffe ren t judgem ents have d ifferent p rocessing tim es

546 COIN AND TIBERGHIEN

TABLE 1Face Recognition Performance as a Function of Encoding Instructions

H its F A d ¢ b

A u th o r(s ) F P F P F P F P

B ib e r e t a l. (19 8 1) .6 5 < .8 1 Ð Ð Ð

B lo o m & M ud d (1 9 91 ) .5 6 < .7 6 Ð Ð Ð

B o w er & K arlin (1 97 4 ; E x p . I) .6 0 < .8 1 Ð Ð Ð

B o w er & K arlin (1 97 4 ; E x p I I) .5 6 < .7 6 Ð Ð Ð

C are y e t a l. (1 98 0 )a

.8 0 < .8 8 Ð Ð Ð

C o urto is & M ue lle r ( 19 79 ) .6 9 < .8 4 .2 1 > .1 2 1 .5 < 2 .4 2 .1 ± 2 .7

D evine & M a lpa ss (19 85 ) Ð Ð .8 6 > .8 0b

Ð

G aon ac ’ h & G ib o in (1 97 7 ; E x p . I) .8 5 < .92c

Ð Ð Ð

G aon ac ’ h & G ib o in (1 97 7 ; E x p . II) .7 8 < .87c

Ð Ð Ð

L igh t e t a l . (1 97 9 ; E x p . I)d

.5 4 < .6 5 .2 9 > .2 1 .6 6 < .7 5e

Ð

L igh t e t a l . (1 97 9 ; E x p . II)d

.5 5 < .6 4 .2 8 > .2 1 .6 6 < .7 6e

Ð

M ay es e t al . (1 98 0 )a

.4 2 < .5 0 Ð Ð Ð

M cK e lv ie (1 97 8) .8 3 < .8 8 Ð Ð Ð

M cK e lv ie (1 98 5) .8 2 < .8 7 Ð Ð Ð

M cK e lv ie (1 99 1) .6 6 < .9 0 Ð Ð Ð

M u e ller e t a l. (1 97 8 ; E x p . I)f

.5 8 < .6 6 .2 0 = .1 9 1 .1 < 1 .4 1 .7 = 1 .4

M u e ller e t a l. (1 97 8 ; E x p . II ) .4 8 < .6 7 .2 5 = .2 3 .6 9 < 1 .2 1 .5 = 1 .2

M u e ller e t a l. (1 97 9 ) .6 3 = .6 9 .2 2 > .1 5 1 .2 < 1 .7 1 .8 = 2 .7

M u e ller & W he rry (19 8 0) .5 2 < .7 8 .16 ± .15 1 .2 ± 1 .9 3 .0 ± 1 .5

Pa t te rson & B ad d e ley (1 9 77 ) .7 6 < .8 2g

Ð 1 .5 < 1 .9 Ð

Sm ith & W in og ra d (1 97 8 )h

.7 5 < .8 6 .2 1 = .2 2 1 .5 < 1 .9 1 .0 = 0 .9

Sp o rer (1 9 91 ) .5 6 < .6 6 .30 ± .26 .6 9 < .7 7b

Ð

Strin ge r (1 98 7 ) .5 1 < .6 7 Ð Ð Ð

Strnad & M u e lle r (1 97 7)i

.4 6 < .5 5 .2 6 < .3 4 Ð Ð

T erry (1 99 3 ; E x p . I) .7 4 < .8 1 .1 6 = .1 6 2 .4 = 2 .7 5 .1 = 4 .4

T e rry (1 99 3 ; E x p . II) .6 5 < .7 0 .2 4 > .2 0 1 .4 > 1 .8 3 .0 = 3 .3

W arri ng to n & A ck roy d (1 97 5 ) .80 < .86c

Ð Ð Ð

W ells & H ryc iw (1 98 4 ) .2 5 < .5 5 Ð Ð Ð

W ells & T u rtle (1 9 88 ) .5 4 < .7 8 Ð Ð Ð

W ino g ra d (1 97 6) .66 < .75c

Ð Ð Ð

W ino g ra d (1 98 1; E x p . I) .6 4 < .7 3 .2 5 > .1 6 1 .0 < 1.6e

Ð

W ino g ra d (1 98 1; E x p . II ) .7 0 < .7 6 Ð .8 5 < .8 8e

Ð

F = jud g em ent ab ou t a fa c ial fe a tu re ; P = ju d gem en t abo u t p e rson a lity tra it . D a sh e s in d ic at e n o

d at a av a ilab le . T h e d iffe re n ces a re s ig n if ic an t a t th e .0 5 lev e l a t le a s t; < in fe rio r; > sup e rio r; = n o

s ig n i fic an t d i ffe re nce; ± n o diffe re nce m en tion ed .aD a ta e s tim a ted a s a c cu ra te ly as p o ss ib le fro m a f igu re in th e orig ina l a rti c le .

bT he sens i tiv ity is

exp re ssed b y th e A ¢ es t im a te .cH its p lu s Fa lse P os it iv e s.

dD a ta o b ta in ed fro m typ ica l an d un u su a l

fa c e s.eT h e sens it iv ity is exp re ssed by th e A g e s tim a te .

fD a ta o b ta in ed fro m tw o g ro up s of su b je ct s (5

and 1 5 secon ds ex po sure du ra tion).gS ign ifi c an t a t the .1 0 leve l.

hD a ta ob ta ined fro m tw o g ro up s o f

sub jec ts (18 ±52 y ea rs o ld an d 5 0±8 0 y ea rs o ld ).iD a ta ob ta ined fro m tw o g rou p s of sub jec ts

(in c id en ta l an d in ten t io na l le a rn in g).

547

and exposure dura tion is constan t, the e ffec ts of exposure dura tion m ay be

confounded w ith the type of encoding instruction .

Control Group, Incidental Learning, and IntentionalLearning

Studies designed to exam ine the effects o f encoding instructions on fac ial

rec og n ition va ry in th e ju dg em en ts req u ired . T h is h as tw o im p o rta n t

consequences. F irs t, they relate on ly to a lim ited se t o f strateg ies fo r face

encod ing em ployed outside labora tory settings. Norm ally face encod ing is

conduc ted spon taneously and is free of im posed judgem ents (a t least o f the k ind

d iscussed here). Second , com parison betw een stud ies is difficu lt because of the

lack of a com m on basis, in add ition to unavoidab ly varying procedures be tw een

experim en ts. For exam ple , it is d ifficu lt to draw a para lle l betw een recogn ition

perform ance obta ined after judgem ents abou t sex and about likeab ility (e .g .

B ow er & K arlin , 1974), and those obta ined after judgem ents abou t w eigh t and

in te lligence (e .g . M uelle r, B ailis, & G oldstein , 1979).

In these studies, th ree types of lea rning were used :

1 . S tandard in ten tional lea rn ing in w hich sub jec ts a re instruc ted only to

exam ine the stim uli during the study phase. T hey are w arned abou t the

subsequen t test phase .

2 . N on-standard inten tional learn ing in w hich sub jec ts m ake judgem ents

during the study phase . They are warned abou t the subsequen t tes t phase .

3 . Inciden ta l lea rn ing in w hich subjects m ake judgem ents w ithou t know ing

abou t the subsequen t recogn ition test.

In order to assess the effects of d ifferen t encoding instruc tions w ith regard to

the standard lea rn ing parad igm (basic leve l),1

the lea rn ing fac tor m ust no t be

confounded w ith the type of judgem ent fac tor m ade during the inspec tion phase

(e .g . Dev ine & M alpass, 1985 ; Sporer , 1991). In these experim en ts the learn ing

during the inspection phase is in ten tiona l fo r one group , and inciden ta l w ith

judgem ents to be m ade for the other g roup . Thus, it is no t possib le to com pare

the effec t o f standard in ten tional lea rn ing recogn ition w ith the effec t of

in ten tiona l learn ing w ith judgem ents. H ow ever, B ow er and K arlin (1974)

show ed tha t fac ia l recognition w as superio r fo llow ing judgem ents abou t the

honesty of a face than after judgem ents abou t its gender, both in an inciden ta l

learn ing cond ition (Experim en t 1 ; see also C arey et a l., 1980 ; Pa tte rson &

1T h e ba s ic leve l co n s ide re d h e re is the con d ition w h e re the sub jec t d oe s no t m ake ju d gem en ts

d u rin g th e s tu d y p ha se and is n o tifie d o f th e sub sequ en t te st ph a se . P e rh aps it w ou ld b e p re fe ra b le fo r

the b a s ic lev e l to b e th e con d ition o f in c id en ta l le a rn in g in w hich n o ju dg em ents a re m ade . H ow ev er,

i t m u st be adm itted th a t it i s d if fic u l t to c re a te su ch a co nd it io n .


B add e ley , 1977 ; T erry , 1 993) an d in an in ten tio na l lea rn ing con d ition

(Exper im en t 2 ; see Sporer, 1991 ; W ells & T urtle, 1988). The sam e pattern of

resu lts w as ob ta ined by Strnad and M ueller (1977) w here inciden tal and

intentional lea rn ing cond itions w ere com bined w ith in the sam e experim en t.

Judgem ents based on the m ost d istinc tive featu re do no t lead to better

recogn ition perform ance than judgem ents about the infe rred characte r o f the

face in the inciden ta l lea rn ing condition (D aw & Parkin , 1981; V alentine &

B ruce, 1986), o r in the intentional learn ing condition (W inograd , 1981). In

conc lusion , the sim ila rity o f the results ob ta ined w ith in ten tiona l and inc iden tal

cond itions seem s c lea rly dem onstra ted . To no tify sub jec ts o f the subsequent

m nesic test does no t have an effec t on recognition perfo rm ance .

O n the other hand , info rm ing sub jec ts about the recogn ition test could y ie ld an

effec t o f encoding instruc tions that is hard to in terp re t. W e canno t be abso lute ly

sure that subjects d id no t use the ir usua l encod ing strategy w hatever the

instruc tions g iven . In the sam e way that sub jects canno t he lp sem antica lly

iden tify ing a written w ord (Stroop effect, S troop , 1935), o r that one has difficu lty

hearing speech as sim ple sounds (Fodor, 1983), ask ing sub jec ts to m ake a

judgem ent abou t a fac ia l fea ture does not assure us tha t a judgem ent about

persona lity tra its is not a lso m ade. To ensure tha t sub jects ac tually used an holistic

encoding strategy , D effenbacher e t al. (1981) asked them to g ive an opin ion about

the d ifficu lty of m em orising the overall structu re of the face . S im ilarly , in o ther

stud ies, instead of a b inary judgem ent (e .g . likeab le vs. un likeab le), subjects w ere

asked to m ake the ir judgem ent on a 4-po int scale (B iber e t al., 1981) or on a

7-po in t scale (W ells & H ryc iw , 1984). In this w ay one can hope to have a m ore

effec tive contribution by sub jec ts. T o say w hether a nose is short o r long cou ld

hard ly ho ld the sub jec ts’ atten tion . In order to offset th is d isadvantage, Sporer

(1991) alterna ted w ithin a session the featu re on w hich judgem ents w ere m ade .

For exam ple, subjects w ere asked abou t nose size at item 1, abou t the gap betw een

the eyes a t item 2, e tc . H owever these precau tions are not en tire ly sa tisfy ing . T he

m ost direct con tro l w as ob tained by B loom and M udd (1991). They m easured

toge ther tim e inspec tion, eye m ovem ents and pup il d iam eter. T hey found tha t as

m ore eye m ovem ents w ere recorded , m ore fea tures w ere processed . H owever th is

record ing is use fu l on ly if w e consider, as B loom and M udd did, that personality

tra it judgem ents requ ire the exam ination of num erous physica l fea tures and

cannot be done at first g lance. In sum m ary , it is d ifficu lt to ob tain an equ iva lence

betw een the encoding requested and the encod ing m ade .

Tak ing into accoun t stud ies w here no judgem ents w ere m ade during

encoding , the da ta show consisten tly that m em ory for faces is invariab ly

superio r o r equally fo llow ing no judgem ents (standard inten tional encod ing)

com pared w ith fo llow ing judgem ents abou t a fac ia l featu re (see T ab le 2).

M oreover, fac ia l recogn ition is superio r o r equa l follow ing judgem ents about a

persona lity trait com pared w ith recogn ition after no judgem ents, and after a

judgem ent abou t a facial fea ture . So w e cou ld state that judgem ents abou t a

FACE RECOGNITION 549

persona lity trait o f a face lead to better recogn ition perfo rm ance than no

judgem ent (standard inten tiona l encoding) w hich in tu rn leads to a better

recogn ition perform ance than judgem ents about a physica l fea ture . T here fore ,

encod ing instructions invo lving judgem ents about a face fac ilita te (w hen a

persona lity tra it judgem ent is requested ) o r d isrup t (when a fac ial featu re

judgem ent is requested ) the recogn ition of the face .

Exposure Duration

Severa l au thors argue tha t judgem ents about persona lity tra its requ ire m ore tim e

to be ach ieved than do judgem ents about fac ia l fea tures (e.g . Badde ley &

W oodhead , 1982 ; D aw & Park in , 1981). G oldste in and Papageorge (1980)

ob tained data that seem s to invalida te such a hypothesis. Judgem ents about

beau ty and attrac tiveness of the face w ere done w ith in 150m s, w hich is m uch

shorter than the tim e allow ed to subjects to m ake judgem ents in the present

rev iew (i.e . 5 to 15 seconds). In con trast, B loom and M udd (1991, Experim en t 1)

recorded inspection tim e w here sub jec ts were asked to close the ir eyes as soon

as they had m ade the ir judgem ent. T he resu lts show ed tha t no judgem ent and

gender judgem ent d id not requ ire d iffe ren t p rocessing tim e (0 .39 s vs. 1 .09 s, no

sign ifican t d iffe rence), bu t tha t these bo th requ ired less tim e than honesty

judgem ents (2 .78 s).

T he exposure duration fac tor cou ld be confounded w ith the encoding type

facto r. In M ontgom ery ’ s study (cited in D effenbacher e t a l., 1981) the

recogn ition perform ance varied w ith encoding conditions m ade w ithin eigh t

TABLE 2Face Recognition Performance as a Function of Three Different Instructions

H its

A utho r(s ) F ea tu re S ta nd a rd P e rson a li ty

B ibe r e t a l . (1 98 1 ) .6 5 < .77 = .81

B loo m & M u dd (19 9 1) .5 6 = .48 < .76

B laney & W in o gra d (1 9 78 )a

.6 6 = .64 < .74

D e ffe n bach er e t a l . (19 8 1 ; E x p . I) .9 1 = .93 = .94

D e ffe n bach er e t a l . (19 8 1 ; E x p . II) Ð .91 < .96

L ig h t e t a l. (1 97 9 ; E x p . I)b

Ð .59 < .61

L ig h t e t a l. (1 97 9 ; E x p . II)c

Ð .67 = .67

M aye s e t a l. ( 19 80 ) .4 1 < .46 < .50

S m ith & W in o gra d (19 78 ) .7 5 = .75 < .86

S po re r (19 9 1) .5 6 < .67 = .66

W arrin g ton & A ck ro yd (19 75 )d

.8 0 = .78 < .86

D ash es in d ica te no d a ta av a ila b le ; th e d iffe re n ces a re s ig n if ic an t a t the .05 lev e l a t le a s t; < infe rio r;

> sup e rio r; = no s ig n i fic an t d iff ere n ce .aD a ta o b ta in ed w ith 5±1 0-y ea r-o ld ch i ld re n .

bD a ta o b ta in ed w ith ty p ica l fa c e s .

cD a ta ob ta in ed w i th

u n usu al fa ce s .dH its p lu s Fa lse Po s it ive s .


seconds. On the o ther hand, no recogn ition perfo rm ance d ifference occurred

betw een encod ing conditions w hen the presenta tion of the targe t stim ulus was

repea ted . T he ce iling effect tha t cou ld appear w ith a long exposure dura tion does

not a llow clea r inte rpre tations. O nly experim en ts in w hich both encod ing

instruc tions and dura tion of study process vary cou ld allow us to d issociate the

effec t o f these two fac tors. For exam ple , D aw and Parkin (1981 ; see also Parkin

& H ayw ard, 1983 , Experim en ts 1 and 4) recorded the dec ision tim e requ ired to

m ake varied judgem ents abou t faces. The resu lts show that judgem ents abou t

persona lity tra its are m ade m ore qu ick ly than judgem ents abou t a d istinc tive

fac ial fea ture (2255m s vs. 3280m s). If w e consider the resu lts ob ta ined by

B loom and M udd (1991) and by Park in and h is collaborato rs (abou t a physical

fea ture, a persona lity tra it, and a d istinc tive fac ial fea ture ), any judgem ents

cou ld be ach ieved with in three seconds. Unfortuna te ly , in the stud ies exam ined

here , the encod ing tim e w as a lw ays greate r than five seconds, so it is no t

possib le to d issocia te the exposure dura tion fac tor and the encod ing type fac to r.

A m ore sa tisfacto ry paradigm w ould allow sub jects on ly the dura tion necessary

to m ake a judgem ent. Indeed, it cou ld be argued tha t in the facial fea ture

judgem ent cond ition, as the dura tion allow ed is g reate r than the necessary

dura tion to m ake such a judgem ent, sub jects could also have suffic ien t tim e to

m ake a personality trait judgem ent.

Exposure Duration and Judgement about aDistinctive Feature

In the d istinctive fea ture judgem ent cond ition (e .g . Reyno lds & Pezdek , 1992,

Ex perim en t 2; Valen tine & Bruce , 1986, E xperim ent 3 ; W inograd, 1978,

1981) the sub jec ts w ere asked to exam ine the fac ia l featu res and to se lec t the

fea ture tha t seem ed to be the m ost d istinctive . T he level of recogn ition

perfo rm ance ob tained w as not d ifferent from the recognition ra te ob ta ined

fo llow ing a personality tra it judgem ent. T he au thors consider tha t th is task

requ ires the ex traction of a large num ber of fea tures (e .g . W inograd , 1981).

H ow ever the recognition perform ance is ra the r varied, that is, from 68.8% to

91.2% . In all these experim en ts, the encod ing instruction fac tor is a be tw een-

subjec ts facto r. So , each sub jec t w as asked to perfo rm only one task , w hich

consisted of e ithe r m ak ing a judgem ent abou t a persona lity tra it o r choosing

the m ost distinc tive featu re . M oreover, the list from w hich the sub jects

se lec ted a featu re d id no t vary w ithin the study , and th is list con tained a

various num ber of featu res (from 5 to 11). T he sub jects knew w hich fea tures

they had to observe during the exposure of the ta rget face and it w as probab ly

easier to observe five featu res during five seconds (Courtois & M uelle r, 1979)

than nine fea tures during th ree seconds (Daw & Park in, 1981). So it can be

assum ed tha t the perfo rm ance ob tained depended in part on the exposure

dura tion of the target face (from 3 to 20 seconds), and a lso depended on the


leng th of the list from w hich a fea ture w as selected (from 5 to 11) (see

F ig . 1 ).

INTERPRETATIONS

Depth of Processing

T he data showing that judg ing the in ferred charac ter o f a face (e.g . likeab ility)

leads to be tter recogn ition perfo rm ance than a judgem ent abou t a physical

featu re, have been inte rp re ted by o thers w ith in the leve ls o f p rocessing

fram ew ork (e .g . B ow er & K arlin , 1974 ; M cK elvie, 1985; Patterson & B adde ley ,

FIG. 1. Face re cog n i tio n p e rfo rm an ce as a fun c tio n o f ex po sure d ura t ion o f th e ta rg e t fa c e. L e tte rs

ab ov e the x -a x is re pre sen t ex p er im ents fro m w hich da ta w e re ob ta in ed .aD aw an d P a rk in (19 8 1).

bC o urto is and M u e lle r (19 79 ).

cV a len tin e an d B ru ce (1 9 86 , E x pe rim en t 3).

dPa rk in an d G o od w in

(1 9 83 ).e

W ino gra d (1 98 1 , E x p eri m en t 1 ).fW ino g ra d (1 98 1 , E x p er im ent 2).

gD effe n bach e r e t a l.

(1 9 81 ). T h e y-a x is o n the rig h t r ep re sen ts th e nu m be r of fe a tu re s fro m w hich su b jec ts ch o se a fea tu re .

W hen the lis t c o n ta in ed 1 1 fe a tu re s (E xp e rim en ts a , c , e , f, a n d g ), th e n um b e r 9 w as p re fe rre d

b ecause of the tw o irre lev an t fe a tu re s othe r and n on e .


1977 ; W inograd, 1976). T he leve ls o f processing hypothesis w as dem onstra ted

using verbal m ateria ls (C raik & Lockhart, 1972). These authors show ed that

w ords processed sem antically w ere rem em bered be tter than w ords processed for

the ir physical charac te ristics. Bow er and K arlin (1974) w ere the first to app ly

this theoretica l no tion to m em ory for faces. The sub jec ts w ere asked to m ake

d icho tom ic judgem ents abou t gender and abou t the perceived honesty or

likeab ility of a face . B ow er and K arlin show ed tha t m em ory for faces is

considerab ly be tter fo llow ing a deep encoding (e.g . judgem ent abou t likeability)

than a superficia l encod ing (e .g . judgem ent abou t gender). T hey argue that as

p rocessing leve l increases, a larger num ber of associa tions to the targe t a re

fo rm ed in m em ory which enhances m em ory perfo rm ance .

H ow ever, th is hy po thesis has b ee n ch alleng ed b y n um e rous au thors .

W inograd (1981) a rgues tha t it is the am ount ra the r than the type of info rm ation

encoded tha t enhances the recogn ition rate (e laboration hyp othesis). Indeed ,

w hen the sub jec ts w ere asked to choose the m ost d istinctive fac ia l featu re ,

recogn ition perfo rm ance w as as high as fo llow ing a judgem ent abou t a

persona lity tra it (B laney & W inograd , 1978 ; C ourto is & M ueller, 1979; D aw &

Park in , 1981 ; D effenbacher et al., 1981 ; Park in & G oodw in, 1983; Park in &

H ayw ard, 1983 ; Sm ith & W inograd , 1978 ; Valen tine & Bruce, 1986 ; W inograd ,

1978 , 1981). M ore prec ise ly, W inograd and h is co llabora tors argue that a

persona lity trait judgem ent invo lves the encod ing of a large num ber of fea tures,

w hich enhances the probab ility o f encod ing a d istinctive fea ture . Courtois and

M ueller’ s (1979) hypo thesis, a lthough sligh tly d ifferen t, leads to the sam e

conc lusion . A ccording to these au thors, a judgem ent about a persona lity tra it

(e.g . honesty ) requires the exam ination of num erous facial fea tures in order to

a llow the m atch ing be tw een the presented face and a m em orised ``honest’ ’ face

proto type . T hus, contra ry to W inograd’ s (1981) ideas, the scann ing of num erous

fea tures is required befo re judgem ent can be m ade . O n the o ther hand , a

judgem ent about a physica l facia l fea ture requires a decision on only one

fea ture.

K err and W inograd (1982) c ritic ise the in feren tia l na ture of such a

hypo thesis. Indeed , w e cannot be sure tha t when the subjects m ake judgem ents

abou t personality they ip so fac to encode a la rge num ber of fea tures. Kerr and

W inograd found tha t face recogn ition increased w ith the num ber of desc rip tive

sentences read during the encod ing phase. Such a resu lt is in agreem ent w ith

W inograd ’ s hypo thesis. M ost in teresting ly , in a th ird exper im en t they included a

reca ll te st to be sure tha t the encod ing of the sentences w as ac tua lly done by the

subjec ts. H ere the recogn ition ra te d id not vary w ith the num ber of sentences

read during the encod ing phase. S im ila rly , the recogn ition perfo rm ance does not

vary w ith the num ber of sta tem en ts (3 vs. 15) show n w ith the targe t face

(Baddeley & W oodhead , 1982). A s suggested by an anonym ous rev iew er, an

a lte rna tive argum ent cou ld be proposed . T hat is, a longer than necessary

exposure dura tion for the ``encode a fea ture /encode a d istinc tive featu re’ ’


in struc tion m ay a llow sub jects to encode m ore featu res than the instruction

d icta tes is necessa ry , and th is in itself m ay fac ilita te the invo lun tary judgem ent

o f personality .

If a judgem ent abou t persona lity induces the encod ing of severa l fac ial

featu res, a reconstruc tion task w ith an Identik it2

carried ou t a fte r such a

judgem ent w ould be done m ore successfu lly than fo llow ing a physica l featu re

judgem ent. U sing a be tween-sub jec ts facto ria l design, W ells and H ryc iw (1984)

asked their sub jec ts to m ake a judgem ent about a persona lity trait o r abou t a

physica l featu re, and then subm itted them to tw o diffe ren t tests: eithe r a

recogn ition test o r a reconstruc tion tes t. A lthough the recogn ition ra te ob tained

confirm s the earlier da ta , pe rform ance on the reconstruc tion task was better

fo llow ing judgem ents re lated to physical fea tures than after judgem ents about

the perceived honesty of the face . Th is resu lt calls into question W inograd’ s

e laboration hypo thesis. H ow ever w e probab ly need to c larify the cond itions in

w hich such resu lts have been ob ta ined . F i rs t, the da ta tha t cha llenged

W inograd ’ s hypo thesis cam e from reca ll tests (K err & W inograd , 1982) and

from reconstruc tion tasks (W ells & Hryc iw , 1984). It can be assum ed tha t such

tasks require a d ifferent p rocess from a recogn ition task (e .g . C om ish , 1987). In

a sim ilar way , Badde ley and W oodhead (1982) d id no t observe any d ifference in

recogn ition rate afte r the encod ing of various statem en ts p resented w ith the

ta rge t face . B ut this situa tion is rather d iffe ren t from the cond ition in which

sub jec ts a re asked to m ake judgem ents abou t physica l fea tures.

A no ther a ttem pt to test these tw o hypo theses w as carried ou t by B loom and

M udd (1991). In order to assess how m any featu res of the target w ere exam ined

in the tw o con trasted cond itions (persona lity and fea ture judgem ents) they

recorded the num ber of eye m ovem ents during the encoding phase . They

observed tha t m ore eye m ovem ents w ere m ade in the personality trait judgem ent

than in the fea ture judgem ent cond ition . H owever, although this resu lt is

com patib le w ith the e laboration hypothesis (m ore featu res are encoded during

persona lity judgem ents by m ore eye m ovem ents), it does no t ipso facto infirm

the depth of p rocessing hypothesis.

Level of Processing and Implication of the Subject

M uelle r et al. (1979) a rgued tha t a dec ision invo lving a se lf-reference criterion is

deeper than one involv ing a neutra l abso lute criterion . In order to test th is

hypothesis, sub jec ts w ere asked to base their decision on a personal criterion

(e .g . ``Is the person as ta ll as you? ’ ’ ), o r on an abso lu te criterion (e.g . ``Is the

person over 5 ft 6 in ta ll? ’ ’ ). H ow ever, no sign ifican t difference w as found

be tw een the recognition decisions m ade, w ha tever the type of encod ing

2A n Id en tik i t enab le s th e co m po s ition or the re co n stru c tion of a fa c e fro m bla ck an d w h ite

p h o to g ra ph s o f th e fiv e m a in fa c ia l f ea tu re s ; ha i r, e ye s , n o se , m o u th , and ch in .


instruc tions (see also M ueller, C ourto is, & Bailis, 1981). It seem s that the

im plica tion of the sub ject leads to a h igher level o f recogn ition . For exam ple ,

w hen the question : ``Does this person look like you? ’ ’ is asked during the

encoding phase, the recogn ition ra te is superio r to tha t fo llow ing fea ture

judgem ents bu t does no t d iffer from those follow ing persona lity judgem ents

(Courto is & M ueller, 1979). In a ra ther sim ilar w ay , Sporer (1991) ob ta ined a

better recogn ition ra te w hen the sub jec ts them se lves generated re levan t fea tures

fo r the judgem ent abou t a physical featu re than after a judgem ent about a fea ture

g iven by the exper im en te r. H ow ever th is e ffec t w as no t observed w ith

judgem ents abou t persona lity tra its. T here fore w e m ay expec t an in terac tion

betw een the type of encod ing and the im plica tion of the subject.

Componential and Holistic Processing

N um erous au thors have interp re ted recognition perfo rm ance as a function of the

orien ting tasks w ith in the com ponential/ho listic fram ew ork . Several types of

judgem ents a re seen as be ing ho listic :

1 . Judgem ents abou t persona lity (M ayes, M eude ll, & N eary, 1980 ; Pa tte rson

& B adde ley , 1977).

2 . Judgem ents abu t a hobby or about the pro fession tha t the person depic ted

w as likely to en joy or to prac tise (K latzky , M artin , & K ane, 1982 ; Spore r,

1991).

3 . Jud gem ents ab ou t the w eigh t o f the p erson dep ic ted (W oodhead ,

Baddeley, & Sim m onds, 1979).

4 . Judgem ents abou t the global structu re of the face (D effenbacher e t a l.,

1981).

O n the o ther hand, judgem ents abou t physica l fac ia l featu res and abou t

gender are supposed to be done in an analy tica l way (Galper & C osta , 1980 ;

W ells & H ryc iw , 1984). T he com ponen tia l/ho listic d icho tom y seem s to be only

a fram ew ork to in terp ret the resu lts ob tained . Indeed , none of the stud ies has

d irec tly com pared the effects o f holistic judgem ents (e .g . scann ing the overa ll

struc tu re of the face) and com ponen tia l judgem ents (e.g . look ing a t a fac ial

fea ture) on subsequent recogn ition . D effenbacher et al. (1981) asked sub jec ts to

perfo rm an ho listic task , i.e. to scan the g loba l struc ture of a face . N o difference

w as ob tained in a yes/no recogn ition task w hatever the encod ing task (ho listic ,

standard , or judgem ents abou t a d istinctive featu re).

Judgem ents Abou t Person ality Tra it or In te lligence . If such a judgem ent

cou ld be carried out from one or tw o featu res, it cou ld be perfo rm ed analy tically .

O n the other hand , the processing of num erous fac ia l featu res cou ld be either

holistic o r ana lytic . In a review abou t soc ia l a ttribu tion, Shepherd (1989) po ints


ou t tha t the re is no rea l ag reem ent am ong sub jec ts abou t physica l cues in

ranking faces on in te lligence . A s various and d ifferen t fea tures are considered

by subjects, it is likely tha t num erous physica l fac ia l cues a re taken in to account

instead of a few , fo r exam ple , th in eyebrow s, large or sm all eyes. A s such , w e

canno t know if the processing perfo rm ance is analy tic or ho listic in na ture .

Judgements About W eight and H eigh t. Fac ial recogn ition ra te is different

fo llow ing judgem ents about in telligence and physical featu res (W inograd, 1976)

bu t no t follow ing judgem ents abou t in te lligence and w eigh t (M ueller e t a l.,

1979; W inograd , 1976). A ccord ing to W inograd (1976), a judgem ent about

w eigh t requ ires a m ore g loba l p rocess than a judgem ent abou t a physical fea ture ,

because w eigh t is a g loba l charac teristic o f the person. One cou ld argue tha t

judgem ents abou t inte lligence and w eigh t bo th requ ire an ho listic assessm ent

(e .g . W oodhead e t a l., 1979). H ow ever, these explanation s need further

c larifica tion . F irst, we canno t d raw a conc lusion from the lack of d iffe rence

be tw een recogn ition ra te a fter judgem ents about in telligence and about w eigh t.

Second , it has been argued tha t judgem ents abou t in telligence lead to a h igh

recogn ition ra te becau se the processing w as supposed to be ho listic.

Judgements Abou t G ender. In everyday life , judgem ents abou t gender

could be based on sim ple cues (e .g . presence of a tie , m ake-up). M oreover, th is

is not possib le in the laborato ry w hen these cues are care fully discarded (e .g .

B ow er & K arlin, 1974 ; Carey e t al. 1980; M cK elv ie , 1 978 , E xperim ent 4 , 1985;

S trnad & M ueller, 1977). Such a decision could then be based on severa l local

cues (th ickness of eyebrow s, eye size) o r on m ore g loba l cues (shape of the jaw ),

o r even on re la tionsh ip betw een fac ia l featu res as suggested by O ’ T oole ,

M illw ard, and A nderson (1988). If w e consider tha t just one cue is no t su ffic ien t,

such a judgem ent could require an ho listic p rocess (e .g . B row n & Perrett, 1993).

Ind irec t da ta show tha t gender judgem ents a re processed ho listica lly . L ow

spa tia l frequenc ies convey in form ation re la ted to g loba l charac te ristics o f the

face and are integ ra ted by the v isual system earlier than h igh spa tia l frequenc ies

(B reitm eyer, 1984 ; Ericksen & Schu ltz, 1979). B u t Sergen t (1986 , E xperim ent

1 ) found tha t ca tegorisa tion based on gender is perfo rm ed faster than tha t based

on profession . M oreover , gender categorisation is im proved less by the presence

of h igh spa tia l frequencies than profession ca tegorisation . T h is indicates tha t

gender categorisation is m ain ly perfo rm ed through g loba l fac ial characte ristics

(low spa tia l frequenc ies). In terp reting such a resu lt w ith in the com ponen tia l/

ho listic fram ework , one cou ld w onder w hy gender judgem ents a lw ays lead to

low er recogn ition ra tes than personality judgem ents in yes/no recognition tasks

(B ow er & K arlin, 1974 ; S trnad & M uelle r, 1977) and in old /new recogn ition

tasks (Carey et a l., 1980 ; M cK elv ie , 1978 , 1985). Fo llow ing B addeley (1979),

one cou ld argue that th is type of encod ing is no t appropria te to distingu ish faces

of the sam e sex a t the test stage . Indeed the judgem ent m ade a t the encod ing


stage is a judgem ent d istingu ish ing a fem ale face from a m ale face . T his k ind of

judgem ent involv ing the processing of physical featu res cou ld be qu ite useless at

the test stage in d istingu ish ing one fem ale face from the other fem ale faces seen

during encod ing .

Judgem ents A bou t a D istinc tive Fea ture . Judgem ents about a d istinc tive

fea ture, like judgem ents abou t a persona lity trait, lead to a high level o f

recogn ition. A s m entioned earlier, these resu lts a re in agreem ent w ith the

hypo thesis of W inograd (1981) which con tends tha t a judgem ent abou t a

d istinctive fea ture leads to a high leve l o f recogn ition because of the great

num ber of featu res p rocessed . H owever, an a lternative in terp reta tion could be

proposed. In on ly one study (e .g . Courtois & M uelle r, 1979) d id judgem ents

abou t a d istinc tive fea ture lead to a low er recognition perfo rm ance than

judgem ents abou t personality . In teresting ly, the list used by these au thors

con ta ined no featu re induc ing ip so facto an ho listic p rocessing , i.e . ch in, lips,

nose , eye, and forehead . On the contra ry, in the o ther stud ies the list included at

least one facia l fea ture im plica ting a global p rocessing of the face : ``head

shape ’ ’ (V a len tine & Bruce , 1986 , E xperim en t 3); ``head shape ’ ’ , and ``sk in ’ ’

(D aw & Parkin , 1981; D effenbacher e t a l., 1981 ; W inograd , 1981 , E xperim ents

1 and 2); ``ha ir’ ’ (Pa rkin & G oodw in, 1983). W e cou ld argue that because of

such fea tures the na ture of the processing is ho listic during distinc tive fea ture

judgem ents as w ell as during judgem ents abou t persona lity .

Componential/Holistic Processing and HemisphericSpecialisation

N um erous data ind icate tha t the left hem isphere is specia lised in com ponen tial

inform ation processing w hile the righ t hem isphere is specia lised in holistic

inform ation processing (e .g . B radshaw & N ettleton , 1983 ; Y oung & Ellis,

1989). G alper and C os ta (1980) exam ined the influence of ana ly tic and holistic

encoding on subsequen t fac ia l recogn ition . In the encod ing phase, targe t faces

w ere accom panied by soc ial or physica l in form ation abou t each face (e.g .

respec tive ly ``The wom an is v ivac ious and ou tgo ing’ ’ , ``T his w om an has curved

eyebrows and th in lips’ ’ ). T he test faces w ere presen ted e ither in the righ t v isual

fie ld or in the le ft v isua l field . The resu lts show im portant inte rind ividual

d ifferences and an encoding by v isua l fie ld in terac tion (see a lso Proudfoo t,

1982 , E xperim en t 2 , for sim ila r results). M oreover, th is lateral pa tte rn is no t

ob ta ined in the stan dard in ten tion a l lea rn in g parad igm (E xpe rim en t 2 ) .

Th ere fore , faces a re presum ably processed prefe ren tially by the right o f left

hem isphere accord ing to the encod ing type . T he left hem isphere recogn ition

perfo rm ance was superior to the righ t one fo llow ing fac ial fea ture judgem ents,

w hereas the righ t hem isphere w as superio r fo llo w ing judgem ents abou t

persona lity. Such a resu lt is quite in agreem ent w ith da ta show ing a left


h em ispheric su perio rity in ana ly tic p rocessing , and a righ t hem ispher ic

super iority in holistic p rocessing (e .g . M agaro & M oss , 1989 ; V an Kleeck ,

1989). H ow ever the G alper and Costa study is no t very conv inc ing . F irst, the

la tera l exposure dura tion w as too long (300m s) to prevent possib le ocu lar

m ovem ents. G a lper and Costa (1980) po inted ou t tha t th is dura tion m akes the

resu lts m ore robust: indeed in sp ite o f th is, hem ispheric d ifferences w ere

observed . Second, one could argue that the partly verbal encoding (through the

sen ten ces ac com pan y in g the ta rg e t face ) fav ou red the le f t h em isph ere

processing (e .g . M oscov itch, Scullion , & C hristie, 1976 ; Servos & Pete rs, 1990).

Analytic Processing: A Childhood Specificity?

Som e stud ies show that ch ildren process faces analy tica lly , fea ture by fea ture ,

un til 11 or 12 years o ld and then process faces holistica lly (e.g . C arey &

D iam ond, 1977 ; F lin , 1985 ; F lin & D ziuraw iec, 1989). If ch ildren process faces

in an ana lytic w ay , standard in ten tiona l learn ing m ust no t lead to different

recogn ition perform ance from encoding abou t gender. Indeed , B laney and

W inograd (1978) found a resu lt com patib le w ith such a hypo thesis. H ow ever

th is hypo thesis cannot be m ethodo log ica lly accep ted because no conc lusion can

be infe rred from an absence of d iffe rence . On the o ther hand , if ch ildren up to 11

or 12 years o ld process faces in an analy tic w ay and are no t ab le to adop t an

ho listic strategy , the recogn ition perfo rm ance produced shou ld no t be different

according to the type of encoding . Bu t B laney and W inograd (1978) and Carey

e t a l. (1980) ob ta ined the sam e pa ttern of resu lts w ith ch ildren as tha t observed

w ith adu lts; judgem ents about persona lity led to a be tter recogn ition ra te than

judgem ents about gender. Judgem ents abou t personality cou ld allow ch ild ren to

adop t an ho listic strategy that they do no t use spon taneously . H ow ever, w ithout

a con trol g roup it is no t possib le to draw any conclusions.

T his po tential capac ity , if it ex ists (see fo r exam ple B aenn iger, 1994), does

no t seem to vary w ith age. Indeed the m agn itude of the im provem ent in

recogn ition allow ed by persona lity encoding com pared w ith the recogn ition

leve l ob ta ined after featu re encoding, does not seem to vary w ith the age of the

sub jec ts (from 7 to 14 years o ld; Carey e t a l., 1980). T hus, as child ren can

benefit from instruc tions to encode faces, the ana lytic p rocessing canno t be

considered as a childhood spec ific ity . M oreover, recen t investigations show tha t

the effic iency of bo th featu ral encod ing and ho listic encod ing increase w ith age

(C hung & T hom son , 1995 ; E llis & E llis, 1994; Pac teau & B on thoux , 1994).

T he dep th of p rocessing m ode l and the e labora tion m odel a re d ifficult to test.

Superio r recogn ition perfo rm ance m ay be assum ed to arise from deeper

p rocessing, and this requ ires a m ore e labora te degree of fea ture encoding .

M oreover, as m en tioned earlie r, we canno t be sure that the subject ac ts in

accordance w ith instruc tions. H ow ever, the com ponen tial/ho listic fram ew ork


offers a powerfu l w ay of exam in ing the resu lts. It w ould be possib le to

m anipu late the stim uli in order to induce a com ponentia l o r a ho listic p rocessing

of the face . M ore prec isely , w e cou ld ask subjects to m ake judgem ents abou t

persona lity o r abou t a fac ia l fea ture, and to m anipula te the test face (p resen ted

during the recogn ition test) in order to con tro l the type of processing carried ou t.

For instance , the test face cou ld be presen ted upside dow n, so in terfer ing w ith

configura tional (and ho listic ) p rocessing , o r it cou ld be b lurred , so in terfe ring

w ith com ponential p rocessing . T he test face cou ld a lso be filtered, either

con ta in ing h igh-pass spa tia l frequenc ies (conveying fine de ta ils) o r low -pass

spatia l frequenc ies (convey ing coarse info rm ation) (see C oin , 1993 for a

presen ta tion of the spa tia l frequency approach on face recognition ).

IMPROVEMENT OF FACE RECOGNITION

Type of Processing Considered Most Effective bySubjects

B efore exam in ing the possible im provem ent o f face recogn ition , one cou ld ask

subjec ts them se lves. Irrespec tive of the ir e ffec tive w ay of encod ing faces, w hich

is the m ost e ffec tive strategy , as they see it? To look care fu lly at a fac ia l fea ture

cou ld im prove face recogn ition. Th is asse rtion , considered as convey ing the

com m onsense v iew (C ourto is & M ueller, 1979), seem s to be confirm ed in an

inform al w ay by W inograd (1978 , 1981 ; see also M ueller & W herry , 1980).

Indeed , W inograd usually asked the in troduc tory psycho logy studen ts to guess

w hich strategy is m ost effec tive ; judg ing faces in term s of persona lity , judg ing

faces in te rm s of a fac ia l fea ture , or encod ing faces w ithou t any judgem ents (that

is to say in the ir ow n way). Invariably , the m ajority of the studen ts vo ted fo r the

fea ture processing stra tegy . B addeley and W oodhead (1983) first separa ted

subjec ts in to tw o groups according to the recogn ition ra te ob ta ined in a prev ious

experim ent. T he first g roup ob tained a higher leve l o f recognition than the

second group . T hen three recogn ition tests w ere adm in istered, am ong them a

fac ial recogn ition test. The resu lts ob ta ined w ere qu ite in agreem ent w ith the

two-c lass separation carried ou t: the first g roup obta ined significan tly superior

recogn ition perfo rm ance to the second group . H owever the first g roup subjects

c la im ed tha t they had analysed faces featu re by fea ture . T his resu lt con trasts

w ith the da ta presen ted in th is rev iew w hich c lea rly show that judgem ents about

persona lity lead to the best recogn ition rate . Indeed , the resu lts o f a post-

experim enta l questionna ire (Sporer, 1991) ind ica ted that judgem ents about

persona lity, just as judgem ents abou t the m ost d istinc tive fea ture , are considered

to be m ore effec tive than judgem ents abou t physical fea tures. A re sub jects

consc ious of the m ost effective stra tegy for m em orising faces? The agreem ent

betw een w hich stra tegy is considered to be the m ost e ffec tive by sub jec ts, and

the stra tegy that is dem onstrated experim en ta lly to be the m ost e ffec tive ,


a lthough som etim es observed (Courto is & M uelle r, 1979 ; Spore r, 1991), cou ld

no t be considered as com ple te .

Improvement of Face Recognition

Is it possible to im prove face recogn ition perform ance? In the several stud ies

rev iew ed here , it does no t seem tha t a ceiling effect occurs. Indeed , ask ing

sub jec ts to m ake persona lity judgem ents abou t faces im proves recogn ition

p erfo rm anc e , com pared to the reco gn it io n ra te o b ta ine d af te r s tan dard

instruc tions (cf. T ab le 2). On the o ther hand, a lthough the hum an ability to

recogn ise unknow n faces is qu ite rem arkab le in laborato ry cond itions and in

everyday life , th is ability does no t alw ays reach its u ltim ate leve l. For exam ple ,

th is leve l inc reases w ith repea ted disp lay ing of faces (E llis, Shepherd , G ib ling ,

& Shepherd , 1988) or w ith an increase of exposure dura tion (M cK elv ie, 1990 ,

E xperim en t 1; R eyno lds & Pezdek , 1992 , Experim en t 1 ). So , w hich type of

train ing could perm it an im provem ent o f sub jects’ facial m nesic perfo rm ance?

W oodhead et a l. (1979) subm itted sub jec ts to a three-day tra ining course

includ ing lec tures, d iscussions, and exerc ises w ith Penry’ s (1971) Photofit3. T he

train ing consisted of observation (of stance, faces, accesso ries from photo-

g raphs), m em ory (orien ted tow ard s featu re se lec tion from the P hotofit k it), and

verba l desc rip tion (also derived from the P hoto fit). The resu lts ob tained are

ra ther puzz ling : no im provem ent (in a recogn ition task : Experim en t 1 , o r in a

m atching task: Experim en t 2 ), bu t ra the r a decrease of perform ance (in a

m atching task : E xperim ent 3 ) w as observed . A sim ilar resu lt w as ob ta ined by

M alpass, L av igueur, and W eldon (1973 , E xperim ent 1 ) w ith verbal tra in ing .

T he argum ents p roposed to exp lain such lack of im provem ent are as follows:

1 . T his nega tive resu lt could be ascribed to the use of the Photofit which

induces a fea tura l p rocessing of the face, tha t is, o f the eye , the nose , etc .

(W oodhead et al., 1979);

2 . T he process of recogn ising faces is so overlea rned through life tha t any

ex tra tra in ing cou ld not sign ifican tly im prove it (B adde ley & W oodhead , 1983;

D effenbacher, 1988 ; W oodhead et a l., 1979);

3 . T he learn ing m ethods se lec ted are no t su itab le and too artific ial (M alpass,

1981; E llis, Shepherd , & D avies , 1975).

It is no t surp ris ing tha t a train ing procedure favouring the ana lytic p rocessing

of a face (e.g . W oodhead et a l., 1979) does no t perm it an im provem ent of

m em orisa tion . Such a stra tegy , induced by encod ing instructions, leads to a

low er m nesic perform ance than any o ther type of encod ing instruction (standard

3A P ho to fi t en ab le s th e co m po s it io n or re con s tru c tion o f a fa c e by sup e rim po s it io n o f

t ra nsp ar en ci e s, on w h ich th e m a in fa c ial fe atu re s a re re pre sen ted .


lea rn ing , judgem ents abou t personality or abou t a d istinctive fea ture ). One cou ld

suspec t tha t verba l tra in ing (e .g . M alpass e t al., 1973) does no t im prove face

m em orisa tion e ithe r. Indeed , the quality o f the verba l desc rip tions does no t

corre late w ith the capac ity for face iden tifica tion (D effenbacher, 1988; P igot t &

B righam , 1985). Verbalisa tion of faces has been show n to have on ly a few

positive effects on recogn ition perfo rm ance (C hristie & E llis, 1981 ; K latzky &

Forrest, 1984, Experim en t 3 ), and even a nega tive effect (Schoo ler & E ngstler-

Schoo ler, 1990). Subjects them se lves judge verba l desc rip tion of a face to be

m ore d ifficu lt than m em orisa tion (L aughery , D uval, & W ogalte r, 1986).

M oreover, to verba lise on ly sligh tly im proves recognition perform ance (B ruyer,

1982). H owever, ve rba l descrip tions of faces generally lead to a low er m em ory

perfo rm ance than reconstruc tion techn iques using Photofit and Identik it for

c rim ina l investiga tions (e.g . D av ies, 1983), w hich in turn lead to a low er

m em ory perfo rm ance than recogn ition tasks (see e .g . T ibergh ien , 1983 , fo r a

desc rip tion).

A s m entioned earlier, judgem ents about persona lity traits lead to h igher

recogn ition perfo rm ance than standard learn ing instruc tions. W ould such a

stra tegy within a tra ining course perm it an im provem ent o f face recogn ition?

M alpass (1981) subm itted sub jects to various train ing sessions. The subjec ts o f

the first g roup w ere tra ined to ana lyse facial featu res and the ir various changes

through Penry ’ s (1971) Photofit . T he second group of subjects w ere asked to

rank faces accord ing to perso na lity characteristics. T he th ird group of sub jects

w ere asked to look care fully a t the general physical appearance of faces, and

then to rank them accord ing to the ir sim ilarity w ith four o ther faces. Four

successive recogn ition tasks w ere adm in istered to the fourth group . N o

difference to a subsequent yes/no recogn ition test occurred w hatever the

prev ious train ing .

It is possib le, as M alpass (1981) po inted ou t, tha t the sub jec ts’ ab ility in

encoding and recogn ising faces is so high that any train ing m ethod to im prove it

has no effec t. M oreover the m ethods them se lves cou ld be too crude , in v iew of

natu ral stra teg ies deve loped by subjects. F ina lly , we could argue that these

courses a re perhaps based on inadequa te hypo theses of how people process

faces. T he M alpass (1981) experim en t shows tha t tra in ing based on holistic

p rocessing of the face does no t im prove recogn ition perfo rm ance . O ne could

poin t ou t tha t som e people cou ld spontaneously process faces ho listically .

M ueller and Thom pson (1986 , E xperim en t 1 ; see a lso M ueller & Thom pson,

1988) asked sub jec ts to give as m any personality tra its as possible abou t figures,

e ither befo re the study phase or a fter the test phase . Fa lse alarm s w ere few er for

subjec ts w ho gave num erous persona lity tra its than fo r o ther sub jects. H ow ever,

correct dec isions for the fo rm er sub jec ts varied be tw een o ld and new faces. It is

possib le tha t these sub jects adop t a h igh criterion w hich enhances perfo rm ance

on new faces and reduces perfo rm ance on o ld faces. Bu t w e canno t c la im that

the recogn ition ra te is higher fo r sub jec ts who process faces ho listica lly (as was


supposed in this experim ent) than for o thers. Th is superiority , if it ex ists, seem s

to be observed on ly in recogn ition tasks. W hen sub jec ts were asked to recogn ise

faces from Iden tik it , the ana ly tic strategy tha t consists o f exam ining each fac ial

featu re led to a h igher recognition level than the ho listic stra tegy (e.g . L aughery

e t al., 1986).

O n the other hand , W ells and Turtle (1988) noticed tha t judgem ents about

persona lity tra its lead to be tte r recogn ition perfo rm ance than do physical

judgem ents. In contras t, judgem ents about physica l fea tures a re in turn m ore

effic ien t for verba l descrip tion (or fo r reconstruction w ith an Identik it: e.g . W ells

& Hryc iw , 1984) of the studied face (see F ig. 2).

T he data presented here suggest tha t:

FIG. 2. R ecog ni tion and v e rba l de sc rip tion of fa ce s a s a fun c tio n of enco d ing in s tru c tion s . F ro m

``W h at is th e be s t w ay to en co d e fa c es ? ’ ’ by G .L . W e lls & J .W . T urt le , 1 9 88 , In M .M . G ru n eb e rg ,

P .E . M o rris , & R .N . Sy ke s (E d s .), P ra c tica l a sp ec ts o f m em o ry : C urren t re search a n d issu e s: V o l . I.

M em ory in e v er yd ay li fe , (p .1 67 ). C h iche s te r, U K : W iley .


1 . If subjects a re asked to recognise faces am ong o thers (w ith in a crow d or in

an iden tification parade fo r c rim ina l investigation, the m ost e fficient encod ing

stra tegy is to judge faces according to in ferred characte ristics (e.g . pe rsonality

tra it).

2 . W hen the test invo lves a descrip tion of the face (fo r exam ple from an

Iden tikit or a Photofit) the m ost e ffec tive encod ing strategy consists of judg ing

faces accord ing to physica l featu res.

CONCLUSIONS

It is we ll established that encod ing instruc tions influence subsequen t fac ial

recogn ition. H ow ever the explanations proposed are con troversial. T he dep th of

p rocessing theory offe rs an a ttractive fram ew ork to expla in the resu lts obta ined .

N everthe less it has been challenged by the W inograd (1981) e labora tion

hypo thesis. U nfortuna te ly the availab le data do no t enab le us to say exac tly

w hether it is the dep th of p rocessing , o r the num ber of fea tures encoded

(elabora tion hypo thesis) that leads to be tter recogn ition perfo rm ance than the

process of one fac ia l featu re . R esu lts show ing tha t judgem ents abou t personality

perm it a be tter subsequen t recogn ition rate than judgem ents abou t physical

fea tures have been obta ined in various situa tions. A s severa l au thors have

c la im ed , it seem s that the form er would be ho listic in na tu re, and the la tter

ana ly tic . Furthe rm ore, such a hypo thesis is consisten t w ith neurophysio logical

data w hich show tha t the con tribu tion of low spa tial frequencies convey ing

holistic aspec ts o f the stim ulus is superior to the con tribu tion of high spatial

frequenc ies transm itting fea tura l info rm ation for face recogn ition (see Coin,

1993 , for a rev iew ). Unfortunate ly the com ponen tial/ho listic approach was on ly

considered as a fram ew ork to in terp ret the results ob tained . N everthe less th is

approach offers tw o m ain advan tages in eva lua ting the effec t o f encod ing

instruc tions on face recogn it ion . F irst, it is possib le to m anipu late the stim uli in

order to con tro l the in form ation ava ilab le to be eithe r ho listic by b lu rring (o r by

a low -pass spa tia l frequency filtering), o r com ponen tia l by presen ting the face

upside dow n (or by a h igh-pass spa tial frequency filtering) . Thus, w e cou ld

obta in an equ iva lence betw een the type of encoding requested and the type of

encoding perform ed , w hich is d ifficult w ithin the dep th of p rocessing and the

e labora tion m odels.

Judgem ents m ade during encod ing cou ld m ake the re trieval o f fac ial

inform ation sto red in m em ory easier. H ow ever, th is fac ilita tion depends bo th on

the type of judgem ent m ade and on re trieva l cond itions. For exam ple , a

judgem ent abou t a fac ia l featu re is m ore effec tive than a personality judgem ent

in fac ial desc rip tion or reconstruction tasks. Re lative to standard in ten tional

lea rn ing cond itions, to ask subjects to m ake judgem ents about a physical fac ial

fea ture disrupts the subsequen t recogn ition ra te. O n the con tra ry, to ask sub jects

to m ake judgem ents abou t persona lity enhances the recogn ition ra te . F rom these


resu lts, is it possible to in fer tha t facial recognition ab ility, in spite o f its h igh

degree of e fficiency , cou ld be im proved? H ow ever, the train ing courses in tended

to im prove th is ability d id no t show convinc ing resu lts. T he fa ilu re of the

train ing procedure is p robab ly due to the artific ial situa tion of face m em orisation

in the laborato ry . O ne could assum e, on the o ther hand , tha t several fac tors a re

involved in face m em ory in everyday life , depend ing on the situation . For

exam ple , the re liab ility of eyew itness identifica tion cou ld be im proved by

contex t reinstatem en t p rocedures (e.g . Cu tler, Penrod , & M artens, 1987)

a lthough contex t cues cou ld also have an im portan t ro le in labora tory research

(e .g . D av ies, 1988; T ibergh ien , 1986).

F inally, g iven tha t accuracy is usua lly so h igh , any im provem ent m ight have

been m asked by a ceiling effec t (B adde ley , 1979). H ow ever, fac ia l recogn ition

ab ility cou ld probab ly be increased by im prov ing recogn ition la tency. Som e

stud ies have show n that low spa tia l frequenc ies are in teg rated faster than h igh

frequenc ies by the v isua l system (Bre itm eyer, 1984; E ricksen & Schu ltz , 1979).

M oreover, h igh frequenc ies o f a stim ulus could be reduced by b link ing . T hus to

b link or to screw up one ’ s eyes cou ld be an easy w ay to favour the low spa tia l

frequency processing (convey ing ho listic inform ation and in teg rated faster by

the v isual system ) a llow ing an ho listic and fast p rocessing of a face .

M an usc rip t re c e iv ed N o vem b er 1 99 5

M an usc rip t a c c ep ted 31 Ju ly 1 99 6

REFERENCES

B ad d el ey , A .D . (1 97 9 ). A p pl ied co g ni tiv e and cog ni tiv e app lied p sy ch o log y : T he ca se o f fa c e

re co gn ition . In L .-G . N i lsso n (E d .), P erspec tiv es on m em ory re sea rch: E ssa y s in h o no r o f

U p psa la U n ive rsi ty ’ s 5 0 0 th an n ive rsary (p p . 3 6 7±38 8 ). H i llsd a le , N J : L aw re n ce E rlbau m

A ssoc ia te s In c .

B ad d el ey , A .D ., & W o od h ead , M .M . (1 9 82 ). D ep th of pro ce ss ing , con tex t, a n d fa c e re cog n i tion .

C a n ad ia n Jou rna l o f P sy ch o log y , 36 , 1 48 ±1 6 4 .

B ad d el ey , A .D ., & W o od h ead , M .M . (19 8 3). Im prov in g fa c e re cog n i tio n ab ili ty . In S .M .A . L loy d-

B o s to ck & B .R . C liff o rd (E d s .), E va lu a t in g w itne ss e viden ce (p p .12 5 ±1 36 ). N ew Y o rk : W iley .

B aen n ing e r, M .-A . (19 9 4). T h e d ev elop m ent o f fa c e r ec o gn it io n : F ea tu ra l o r co nfigu rat io na l

p roce ss in g? Jou rna l o f E xp e r im en ta l C h ild P sych o logy , 4 7 , 3 77 ±3 9 6 .

B ah ric k , H .P ., B ahr ick , P .O ., & W itt lin g er , R .P . (1 97 5) . F i fty yea rs of m em o ry fo r nam es and fa ce s :

A c ro ss-s e c tio na l ap p roach . Jo u rn a l o f E xp er im en ta l P sy cho log y : G ene ra l, 1 04 , 54 ±75 .

B ibe r, C ., B u tte rs , N ., R o sen , J ., G e rs tm an , L ., & M a tt is , S . (19 81 ). E n cod in g s tra teg ies an d

re co gn ition o f fa c e s b y a lco h o lic K o rsa k o ff an d o th e r b ra in -d am aged pa tie n ts. Jo urn a l o f C l in ica l

N eu rop syc ho lo g y , 3 , 31 5±3 30 .

B laney , R .L ., & W in og ra d , E . (1 97 8 ). D ev elop m en ta l d iffe re n ce s in ch i ld re n ’ s re co gn it io n m em o ry

fo r fa c es . D eve lo pm en tal P sy cho log y , 1 4 , 44 1±4 42 .

B loo m , L .C ., & M ud d , S .A . (19 91 ). D ep th o f pro ce ssing ap pro ach to fa c e re co g n i tio n : A te s t o f

tw o th eori es . Jo urn a l o f E xp e r im enta l P sy ch o lo g y: Lea rn ing , M em o ry, a nd C o gn ition , 17 ,

5 56 ±56 5 .

B o w e r, G .H ., & K a rlin , M .B . (19 7 4). D epth of p ro ce ss in g p ic tu re s o f fa c es an d re cog n ition

m em o ry . Jo urn a l o f E xpe r im en ta l P sy ch o lo gy , 10 3 , 7 51 ±75 7 .


B ra d sh aw , J .L ., & N e ttle ton , N .C . (1 98 3 ). H u m an ce reb ra l a sym m e try . E ng lew oo d C l iffs , N J :

P re n tice -H a ll.

B re itm eye r, B .G . (19 8 4). V isu a l m a sk in g: A n in tegra tive a p pro ach . N ew Y o rk : O xfo rd U nive rs ity

P re ss .

B ro w n, E ., & P e rre tt, D .I. (1 9 93 ). W h at g ive s a fa ce i ts gen de r? P ercep t ion , 2 2 , 82 9±8 40 .

B ru ye r, R . (1 98 2 ). R oÃle d u lan gu age e t d e la m eÂm o ire v isu e lle dan s la p e rc ep t io n de s v isag e s : E ffe t

de s leÂsion s c eÂreÂb ra le s u n i la teÂra le s [R o le o f lang uag e and v isua l m em o ry on fa c e p e rc ep tion :

E ffe c t o f u n ila te ra l b rai n in ju ri es ]. P sych o lo g ie F ra ncË a ise , 27 , 1 4 6±15 7 .

C a re y , S ., & D iam o nd , R . (19 77 ). F ro m p iec em eal to co n fig ura tio na l re p re sen ta tion o f f ac e s .

Sc ience , 1 95 , 3 12 ±3 1 3 .

C a re y , S ., D iam on d , R ., & W o o ds , B . (19 8 0). D eve lo p m en t of fa ce re cog n ition . A m atura t io na l

com p on en t? D eve lo pm enta l P sy cho lo gy , 1 6 , 2 5 7±26 9 .

C h ris tie, D .F .M ., & E l lis , H .D . (1 9 81 ). P ho to -fit co n st ruc t io ns ve rsu s v er ba l d e scri p t io ns of f ac e s .

Jou rna l o f A p p lied P sycho lo gy , 6 6 , 3 5 8±36 3 .

C h un g , M .-S ., & T h om so n , D .M . (19 9 5). D eve lo pm en t o f f ac e rec o g n it io n . B rit ish Jo u rn a l o f

P sy cho lo g y , 8 6 , 5 5±87 .

C li ffo rd , B .R ., & P r ior , D . (19 80 ). L eve ls of p ro ce ss in g an d capac ity a lloc a tion . P ercep tu a l a n d

M o to r Sk i lls , 5 0 , 82 9 ±8 30 .

C o in , C . (19 9 3). Tra item en t co m po n en tie l e t co n f ig ura l d e s v isag e s n on fa m ilier s [C om p o nen tia l

and co n fig ura l p ro c e ss ing o f u nk n ow n fa ce s]. U n pu bl ish ed d oc to ra l d isse rta t ion , G re n ob le

U nive rs ity , F ra nce .

C o m ish , S .E . (1 98 7 ). R eco gn it io n of fa c ia l s tim u li f o l low in g an in te rven in g ta sk inv o lv ing the

Iden ti -k i t. Jou rna l o f A pp lied P sycho lo gy , 7 2 , 48 8±4 91 .

C o urto is, M .R ., & M u e lle r, J.H . (1 9 79 ). P roce ss in g m u lt ip le ph y sic al fe a tu re s in fa c ia l re co gn it io n .

B u llet in o f the P sych on om ic S oc iet y , 14 , 7 4 ±7 6 .

C ra ik , F .I.M ., & L o ckh a rt, R .S . (1 97 2 ). L eve ls o f p roce ss in g : A fra m ew ork fo r m em ory re se ar ch .

Jou rna l o f V e rb a l Learn ing an d V e rba l B eh a v ior , 1 1 , 67 1±6 84 .

C u tle r, B .L ., P en rod , S .D ., & M arte n s , T .K . (1 98 7) . Im p rov in g the re lia b il ity of ey ew itn e ss

id en t ific a tion : Pu tt in g con tex t in to con tex t. Jou rna l o f A pp lied P sycho lo gy , 7 2 , 62 9±6 37 .

D avie s, G .M . (1 9 83 ). F ore n sic fa c e re c a ll: T h e ro le o f v isu a l an d ve rb a l in fo rm a tio n . In S .M .A . L loy d-

B o stock & B .R . C l iffo rd (E ds .), E valua ting w itn e ss e v id ence (p p .10 3 ±12 3) . N ew Y o rk : W iley .

D avie s, G .M . (1 9 88 ). F aces an d p lac es : L ab or ato ry re se a rc h o n co n tex t an d fa c e re co gn it ion . In

G .M . D av ie s & D .M . T h om son (E d s .), M em o ry in co n tex t: C on tex t in m em o ry (p p .35 ±53). N ew

Y ork : W iley .

D aw , P .S ., & Pa rk in , A .J. (1 98 1 ). O b se rv a tions on the e ffic ien cy of tw o d iffe re n t p ro ce ss in g

s tra teg ie s fo r re m em b erin g f ac e s . C a na d ia n Jo urn a l o f P sych o lo gy , 35 , 3 51 ±35 5 .

D e ffe nb ache r, K .A . (1 9 88 ). E yew i tn es s re se a rch : T h e nex t ten yea rs . I n M .M . G ru n eb e rg , P .E .

M o rris , & R .N . Sy ke s (E d s .), P rac tic a l a spec ts o f m em ory : C u rren t re sea rch a nd issu es : V o l . I.

M em o ry in e v e ryda y l ife (p p .20 ±26). C h iche s te r, U K : W iley .

D e ffe nb ache r, K .A ., L eu , J .R ., & B ro w n , E .L . (1 98 1) . M em o ry fo r fa c es : T e s tin g m e th od , en cod in g

s tra teg y , an d co nf iden ce . A m erican Jou rna l o f P sy ch o lo gy , 9 4 , 13 ±26 .

D evine , P .G ., & M a lp a ss , R .S . (1 9 85 ). O ri en t in g s tra teg ie s in d iffe re n tia l fa c e re co gn ition .

P erson a lity a nd S oc ia l P sy ch o lo g y B ul le tin , 1 1 , 33 ±4 0 .

E l lis , H .D ., & E llis, D .M . (1 9 94 ). D eÂv elop p em en t d e s c apac iteÂs aÁ tra ite r d e s tra n sfo rm a tio ns

fa c ia le s ch ez l’ e n f an t [D ev elop m en t o f ch i ld re n ’ s ab i lity to re cog n ize tra n sfo rm ed fa c e s].

P sycho lo g ie F ran cË a ise , 3 9 , 28 7±3 00 .

E l lis , H .D ., Sh eph e rd , J .W ., & D av ie s , G .M . (19 7 5). A n in ve s tiga tio n o f th e u se of th e Ph o tof it

te ch n iq u e fo r re c a lling fac e s . B ritish Jou rna l o f P sy cho lo gy , 6 6 , 29 ±37 .

E l lis , H .D ., Sh eph e rd , J .W ., G ibl in g , F ., & Sh eph e rd , J . ( 19 88 ). S tim ulus fa c to rs in f ac e le a rn ing . In

M .M . G ru neb e rg , P .E . M orri s, & R .N . S yk e s (E ds .), P rac t ica l a spec ts o f m em o ry : C u rren t

res ea rch a nd issue s: V o l. I. M em o ry in e v e ryd a y l ife (p p .1 3 6±14 4 ). C hiche s te r, U K : W iley .


E ric k sen , C .W ., & S chu ltz , D .W . (1 9 79 ). I n fo rm a tio n p roce ss ing in v isua l se a rc h : A co n tin u ou s

flow con cep t ion and exp e rim ental re su l ts . P ercep tion an d P sych o ph y s ic s , 2 5 , 24 9 ±2 63 .

F lin , R .H . (19 85 ). D ev e lo pm en t o f f ac e re co gn it io n : A n en cod in g sw itch ? B rit ish Jou rna l o f

P sych o logy , 76 , 1 23 ±1 3 4 .

F lin , R .H ., & D z iu ra w iec , S . (1 9 89 ). D ev e lo pm ental fa c to rs in fa c e pro ce ss ing . In A .W . Y o un g

& H .D . E llis (E d s.), H a nd b oo k o f re sea rch on fa ce p ro ce ssing (p p .33 5±3 78 ). A m ste rd am :

E lsev ier.

F od or , J .A . (1 98 3 ). T he m od u la ri ty o f m ind : A n e ssay o n facu lty p sych o lo gy . C am b rid g e, M A : M IT

P res s .

G a lp e r, R .E ., & C o sta , L . (1 98 0 ). H em isp he ric su pe rio rity fo r re co gn iz in g f ac e s d ep en ds up o n h o w

they a re lea rn ed . C ortex , 1 6 , 21 ±38 .

G ao nac ’ h , D ., & G ib o in , A . (1 97 7 ). L a re co nn a issance d e p o rtra its: N iv eau e t sub jec tiv iteÂ d u

trai tem ent [F igu re r ec o gn it ion : L ev e l o f pro ce ss ing an d su b jec tiv ity ]. P sycho lo g ie e t P eÂd ag o gie ,

9 , 2 5±32 .

G o ld s te in , A .G ., & P ap ag eo rg e , J . ( 19 80 ). Ju d gm en ts of fa c ia l a t tra c tiv ene ss in the ab sen ce o f ey e

m o vem en ts . B u lle t in o f th e P sycho n om ic S oc ie ty , 15 , 2 69 ±27 0 .

K e rr, N .H ., & W in o gra d , E . (19 8 2). E ffe c ts o f co n tex tua l e lab ora t io n on fa c e re co gn it ion . M em o ry

& C o gn it io n , 1 0 , 60 3±6 09 .

K lat zky , R .L ., & F orr es t , F .H . (1 9 84 ). R eco gn iz ing fa m ilia r and u n fa m iliar fa ce s . M em o ry &

C o g nit io n , 1 2 , 60 ±70 .

K lat zky , R .L ., M a rt in , G .L ., & K ane , R .A . (19 82 ). S em ant ic in te rp re ta tio n e ffe c ts on m em o ry fo r

fa c e s . M em o ry & C o gn it io n , 1 0 , 19 5 ±2 0 6 .

L aug he ry , K .R ., D u v a l, C ., & W o ga l te r, M .S . (19 8 6). D yn am ic s of fa c ia l re c a ll . In H .D . E l lis , M .A .

Je eve s , F . N ew co m b e, & A .W . Y ou ng (E d s .), A spec ts o f fa c e pro ces s in g (pp .3 73 ±38 7).

D o rd re ch t, T h e N e the rl and s : N i jh off.

L ig h t , L .L ., K ayra -S tu a rt, F ., & H olland e r, S . (19 7 9). R ecog ni tio n m em ory for ty p ic a l an d u nu sua l

fa c e s . Jou rna l o f E xp e r im enta l P sych o lo gy : H u m an Learn in g a nd M em o ry , 5 , 2 1 2±22 8 .

M aga ro , P .A ., & M o ss , B .F . (1 98 9 ). T he e ffe c t o f ana ly t ic ve rsu s h o l is tic en cod in g ins tru c tio n s o n

h em isph e ri c sup e rio rity . C o rte x , 25 , 3 17 ±3 2 4 .

M a lp as s , R .S . (1 98 1 ). T ra in in g in fa c e re co g n i tio n . In G .M . D avie s , H .D . E l lis , & J.W . S hep he rd

(E ds .), P ercei vi ng an d rem em ber in g fa c e s ( pp . 2 71 ±2 8 5). L on do n : A cad em ic P re ss .

M a lp as s , R .S ., L av igu eur, H ., & W eldo n , D .E . (1 97 3). V e rba l an d v isu a l tra in ing in fa ce

re co gn ition . P ercep t ion an d P sychop h y sic s, 14 , 2 85 ±2 9 2 .

M aye s , A ., M eu de ll , P ., & N ea ry , D . (1 98 0) . D o am nes ic s ado p t in ef fic ien t enco d ing st ra teg ie s w i th

fa c e s an d ra nd om shap e s? N eu rop syc h o lo g ia , 18 , 5 27 ±54 0 .

M cK e lv ie , S .J. (1 9 78 ). S ex d i ffe re nce s in f ac ia l m em ory . In M .M . G ru neb er g , P .E . M orr is , & R .N .

S yk e s (E ds .), P rac t ica l asp ec ts o f m em ory (pp .2 63 ±26 9) . N ew Y ork : A cad em ic P re ss .

M cK e lv ie , S .J . (19 85 ). E ffe c t o f dep th of p ro ce ss in g o n re co gn ition m em ory fo r n orm a l an d

inv e rte d p ho to g rap h s o f fa c es . P ercep tu a l a n d M otor S ki lls , 6 0 , 50 3 ±5 08 .

M cK e lv ie , S .J . (19 9 0). E ff ec ts o f ex po sure tim e an d in ve rs io n o n the co nfiden ce±accura cy

re la t io nsh ip in fa c ia l m em o ry . A te s t o f the op tim a l ity h yp othe s is . P ercep tu a l an d M o to r S k ills,

7 1 , 32 ±3 4 .

M cK e lv ie , S .J . (19 9 1). E ffe c ts o f pro ce ss in g st ra tegy and tra n sfo rm a tio n o n re co gn it io n m em ory fo r

p ho to g rap hs o f fa c es . B ul le tin o f th e P sycho no m ic So c ie ty , 2 9 , 98 ±10 0 .

M osco v i tch , M ., S cu ll ion , D ., & C hri st ie , D . (1 97 6). E a rly ve rsus la te s tag e s of pro ce ssing and the ir

re la t io n to fun c tio na l hem isph e ric a sy m m e trie s in fa c e re co g n i tio n . Jou rna l o f E xpe r im en ta l

P sych o logy : H u m an P ercep tion an d P er form a nce , 2 , 40 1 ±4 16 .

M ue l le r, J .H ., B a i lis , K .L ., & G o ld s te in , A .G . (1 97 9). D epth of pro ce ss ing and an x ie ty in fa c ia l

re co gn ition . B ri tish Jo urn a l o f P sy ch o lo gy , 7 0 , 5 1 1±51 5 .

M ue l le r, J .H ., C a rlom u sto , M ., & G o ld ste in , A .G . (1 9 78 ). O ri en ting ta sk an d s tu d y tim e in fa c ia l

re co gn ition . B u lle tin o f the P sych on o m ic S oc ie ty , 11 , 3 13 ±31 6 .


M u e ller, J.H ., C o u rto is , M .R ., & B a i lis , K .L . (19 81 ). S e lf-re fe re n ce in fa c ia l re cog n i tion . B ul le tin o f

th e P sycho no m ic So c ie ty , 1 7 , 85 ±88 .

M u e ller, J .H ., & T h om p son , W .B . (19 8 6). S te reo ty p ing an d fa c e m em ory . I n H .D . E ll is , M .A .

Jee v e s , F . N ew com b e , & A .W . Y o un g (E d s .), A spec ts o f fac e pro ce ss in g ( pp .1 63 ±1 69 ).

D ord re ch t , T h e N ethe rl an ds : N i jh off.

M u e ller, J .H ., & T h o m p son , W .B . (1 98 8 ). In d iv idu a l d i ffe re nce s in fa ce m em ory . I n M .M .

G run ebe rg , P .E . M orri s, & R .N . S yk e s (E d s .), P rac t ica l a spec ts o f m em o ry : C urren t re sea rch

an d issu e s: V o l. I. M em o ry in e v e ryd a y li fe (p p .71 ±7 6). C hiche s te r, U K : W iley .

M u e ller, J .H ., & W he rry , K .L . (1 98 0). O rie n tin g s tra teg ie s a t stud y and te s t in fa c ial re co gn it io n .

A m erica n Jou rna l o f P sy ch o log y , 93 , 1 07 ±1 1 7 .

O ’ T o o le , A .J ., M il lw a rd , R .B ., & A nd e rson , J .A . (1 98 8). A p hy s ica l sys tem ap p roach to re co g n i tio n

m em ory fo r sp a tia lly t ra nsfo rm ed fa ce s . N eu ra l N etw o rk s , 1 , 1 79 ±1 9 9 .

Pac teau , C ., & B on th o ux , F . (19 94 ). T ra item en ts an a ly tiq u e s e t h o lis t iqu e s d e s v isage s [A na ly t ic

and ho lis tic p roce sse s o f fa c es ]. P sych o log ie F ra ncË a i se , 39 , 2 75 ±2 8 5 .

Pa rk in , A .J ., & G oo dw in , E . (19 8 3). T h e in flu ence o f d iffe re n t p ro ce ss in g st ra teg ie s on the

re cog n i tio n o f tra n sfo rm ed an d u ntr an sfo rm ed fa c e s . C an a dian Jo urn a l o f P sych o log y , 37 , 27 2 ±

27 7 .

Pa rk in , A .J ., & H ay w a rd , C . (1 98 3). T h e in fluen ce of t ra it a nd p h ys ica l- fea tu re -ba sed o rie n tin g

s tra teg ie s on a sp ec ts of fa c ia l m em o ry . B rit ish Jo urn a l o f P sych o logy , 74 , 7 1±8 2 .

Pa t te rson , K .E ., & B ad de ley , A .D . (19 77 ). W h en fa c e re cog n i tio n fa i ls . Jou rna l o f E xp e r im enta l

P sy cho lo g y: H u m a n Learn in g a nd M em o ry , 3 , 4 0 6±41 7 .

Pen ry , J. (1 9 71 ). L oo k in g a t fac e s an d rem em ber in g them : A gu id e to fac ia l iden ti fica tio n . L o nd on :

E lek B o ok s .

P igo tt , M .A ., & B rig h am , J.C . ( 19 85 ). T h e r el a tio n sh ip be tw een ac cu ra cy o f prio r d e scr ip t io n an d

fa c ia l re co gn ition . Jou rna l o f A p p lied P sycho lo gy , 7 0 , 54 7±5 55 .

P ro u dfo o t , R .E . ( 19 82 ). H em isp h eric a sy m m et ry fo r fa c e re co g n i tio n : S om e e ffe c ts o f v isu a l

m ask in g , hem ire t in al st im u la tion an d le arn in g ta sk . N eu ro p sych o lo g ia , 20 , 1 29 ±14 4 .

R ey no ld s , J .K ., & Pezd ek , K . (1 9 92 ). F ace re co g n i tio n m em o ry : T h e e ffe c ts o f ex po sure d ur at io n

and enco d ing in st ruc t io n . A pp lied C o gn itiv e P sych o log y , 6 , 2 7 9±29 2 .

Sch oo le r, J .W ., & E ng s tler -S ch oo le r, T .Y . (19 90 ). V erb a l ov e rshad ow in g o f v isua l m em o rie s : S om e

th in gs a re be tte r le ft u n sa id . C o g nit iv e P sycho lo gy , 2 2 , 36 ±7 1 .

Se rg en t , J. (1 98 6 ). M ic ro gen e sis o f fa c e pe rc ep tio n . In H .D . E ll is , M .A . Je ev es , J . N ew co m be , &

A .W . Y o un g (E d s .), A sp ec ts o f fa c e p ro ce ssing (p p .17 ±33). D o rd re ch t, T h e N e th erl and s : N ijho ff.

S e rv os , P ., & Pe ter s, M . (1 99 0 ). A cl e ar le ft h em isph e re adv an tage fo r v isu o -sp a tial ly ba sed ve rb a l

c a tego riz a tion . N eu ro p sycho lo g ia , 2 8 , 12 5 1±12 6 0 .

Sh ap i ro , P .N ., & Pen rod , S . (1 9 86 ). M e ta -a na lys is o f fa c ia l id en tific at io n s tu d ie s. P sycho lo g ica l

B u llet in , 10 0 , 13 9 ±1 56 .

Sh eph e rd , J .W . (19 8 9). T h e fa c e an d so ci a l a t trib u tio n . In A .W . Y ou n g & H .D . E l lis (E d s .),

H an d bo ok o f re sea rch on fa ce pro ce ss in g (p p .28 9±3 20 ). A m ste rdam : E lsev ie r.

S im pso n , W .E ., & C ra n da ll, S .J . (1 97 2) . T he pe rc ep tio n o f sm ile s . P sych on o m ic S c ience , 2 9 , 19 7 ±

20 0 .

Sm ith , A .D ., & W ino gra d , E . (1 97 8) . A d ul t ag e d i ffe re nce s in re m em be ring fa c e s . D evelop m en ta l

P sy cho lo g y , 1 4 , 4 43 ±4 4 4 .

Sp o rer , S .L . (1 9 91 ). D eep -D eep er- D eep e st? E n cod in g s tra teg ie s an d the re cog n i tio n o f hu m an

fa c e s. Jo u rn a l o f E xp er im en ta l P sy cho lo gy : Lea rn ing , M em o ry a nd C o gn it io n , 1 7 , 32 3±3 33 .

S t rin g e r, M . (1 9 8 7 ) . R eco g n i t io n m em o ry fo r fa c e s fo l lo w in g d e n o m in a tio n a l ju d g m en ts .

P ercep tua l a nd M o to r S k il ls, 65 , 2 76 .

S t rnad , B .N ., & M u e lle r, J.H . (1 97 7 ). L ev e ls o f pro ce ss ing in fa ci a l re cog n ition m em o ry . B ul le tin o f

th e P sycho no m ic So c ie ty , 9 , 1 7±1 8 .

S t roo p , J .R . (1 93 5 ). S tu d ies o f in te rfe re nce in se ri a l v e rba l re a c tio ns . Jou rna l o f E xp e r im enta l

P sy cho lo g y , 1 8 , 6 43 ±6 6 2 .


T e rry , R .L . (1 9 93 ). H o w w ea rin g ey eg la sse s a ffe c ts fa c ia l re co g n i tio n . C u rren t P sych o logy :

D eve lo pm en ta l, L earn in g , P e rso na li ty, So c ia l, 1 2 , 15 1 ±1 62 .

T ib e rgh ien , G . (1 98 3 ). L a m eÂm o ire de s v isag e s [T he m em ory of fa c e s]. L ’ A n n eÂe P sych o log iqu e , 8 3 ,

1 53 ±19 8 .

T ib e rgh ien , G . (19 86 ). C on tex t e ffe c ts in re co g n i tio n m em o ry of fa ce s : Som e theo re tica l p ro b lem s.

In H .D . E llis , M . Jee v e s , F . N ew co m be , & A .W . Y o u ng (E d s .), A spec ts o f fa c e pro ce ss in g

(p p .88 ±104 ). D o rd r ec h t, T h e N e th er land s : N ijh o ff.

V a len tine , T ., & B ru ce , V . (1 98 6) . T he e ffe ct o f ra c e, inv e rs io n , and en cod in g ac tiv ity up on fa c e

re co gn ition . A c ta P sych o log ica , 6 1 , 25 9 ±2 7 3 .

V an K leeck , M .H . (1 9 89 ). H em isp h eric d i ffe re nces in g lo b a l v e rsu s loc a l p ro ces s in g o f h ie ra rc h ic al

v isu a l s t im ul i by n orm a l su b je c ts : N ew da ta and a m e ta -a n alys is o f p re v iou s s tu d ie s .

N eu rop syc ho lo g ia , 27 , 1 16 5±1 17 8 .

W a rrin g ton , E .K ., & A ckroy d , C . (19 7 5). T h e e ffe c t o f ori en ting ta sk s on r ec o g n it ion m em o ry .

M em ory & C og ni tio n , 3 , 14 0 ±1 42 .

W e lls , G .L ., & H ry c iw , B . (1 98 4). M em o ry fo r fa c e s : E n cod in g an d re t rie va l o p era t io ns . M em o ry &

C o g nit io n , 1 2 , 33 8 ±3 44 .

W e lls , G .L ., & T u rtl e , J .W . (19 88 ). W h a t is the be s t w ay to enco d e fa c es ? In M .M . G ru n eb e rg , P .E .

M orri s, & R .N . S yk e s (E ds .) , P ra c tica l asp ec ts o f m em o ry : C urren t re search a n d issu e s: V o l . I.

M em ory in e v e ryda y life (p p .1 63 ±1 6 8). C h ich e s ter, U K : W iley .

W in og ra d , E . (1 97 6 ). R ec o gn it io n m em o ry fo r fa c e s fo llow in g n ine d i ffe re n t ju dg m ents . B ul le tin o f

the P sycho n om ic S oc ie ty , 8 , 4 1 9±42 1 .

W in og ra d , E . (1 97 8) . E nco d ing op e ra tio ns w h ich fa c ili ta te m em ory fo r fa c e s a c ro ss th e life sp an . In

M .M . G run ebe rg , P .E . M o rris , & R .N . Sy k e s (E d s.), P ra c tica l asp ect s o f m em ory (p p . 2 55 ±2 6 2).

N ew Y ork : A cadem ic P re ss .

W in og ra d , E . (1 98 1 ). E lab ora tion an d d is tin c tiven e ss in m em ory fo r fa ce s . Jou rna l o f E xpe r im en ta l

P sych o logy : H u m an Learn in g a nd M em o ry , 7 , 18 1 ±1 90 .

W oo d head , M .M ., B ad de ley , A .D ., & S im m o nd s , D .C .V . (1 9 79 ). O n tra in in g p eo p le to re cog n ize

fa c e s . E rg on om ics , 2 2 , 33 3±3 43 .

Y o un g , A .W ., & E llis , H .D . (1 98 9) . S em an tic p ro ce ss in g . In A .W . Y o u ng & H .D . E ll is (E ds .),

H a nd bo o k o f re sea rch o n face p ro ce ssing ( pp .2 35 ±2 62 ). A m ste rd am : E lsev ie r.


Encoding Activity and Face Recognition · TABLE1...

Documents

Transcript of Encoding Activity and Face Recognition · TABLE1...