Face and object cognition across age

Online Supplement

Appendix A: Overview of Indicators

Indicator Name of Indicator Speed/Acc

Nr. of trials

Macc SDacc

FP 1 & 2 Sequential matching of part- (FP 1) whole (FP 2) faces

acc 60 .69 & .67

.11 & .11

FP 3 & 4 Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces (FP 3 – upright; FP 4 – inverted)

acc 60 .73 & .64

.12 & .11

OP 1 & 2 Sequential matching of part- (OP 1) whole (OP 2) houses

acc 60 .70 & .67

.11 & .11

OP 3 & 4 Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated houses (FP 3 – upright; FP 4 – inverted)

acc 60 .70 & .68

.13 & .12

FM1 Learning and immediate memory of faces

acc 150 .86 .09

FM 2 Delayed recognition of learned faces 1

acc 30 .83 .12

FM 4 Delayed recognition of learned faces 2

acc 30 .85 .12

FM 3 Eyewitness testimony acc 46 .72 .11SFC 1 Recognition speed of learned

facesspeed 32 .88 .11

SFC 2 Delayed non-matching to sample faces

speed 46 .94 .11

SFC 3 Simultaneous matching of faces from different viewpoints

speed 30 .88 .08

SFC 4 & 5 Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves

speed 60 .94 & .93

.11 & .10

SFC 6 Simultaneous matching of face morphs

speed 30 .91 .08

SOC 1 Delayed non-matching to sample houses

speed 46 .92 .14

SOC 2 Simultaneous matching of morphed houses

speed 30 .95 .05

SOC 3 Verification task (houses) speed 46 .87 .07Note. Classification of the indicators as measures of Face Perception (FP), Object Perception (OP),

Face Memory (FM), Speed of Face Cognition (SFC) and the Speed of Object Cognition (SOC),

speed versus accuracy (acc) as predominant source of performance variability, Macc – mean

performance; SDacc – Standard Deviation.

1

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix B: Task descriptions

Name of Indicators Task descriptionSequential matching of part-whole faces and houses

A face vs. house was presented for 1 s. After an interstimulus interval of 200 ms, a face (eyes, nose, or mouth) or house detail (window, door, or roof) appeared in the part condition together with the same feature extracted from a different face / house. Participants indicated which of two features belonged to the target face or house. In the whole condition, the target face / house was presented together with a distracter composed of the target face / house with one facial feature (eyes, nose, or mouth) or one house detail replaced by the corresponding detail from another face or house. Targets had to be indicated. Part and whole conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix C.

Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces vs. houses

Two faces / houses were presented simultaneously either upright (50% of trials) or turned upside down (inverted). Stimuli within a trial were always from the same face / house. Half of the trials presented faces or houses unaltered. In the other half of the trials one spatial relationship between facial features or house details in one of the faces (e.g. distance between eyes and nose, between eyes, between mouth and nose) or houses (e.g. distance between windows) in one of the stimuli was manipulated. Participants indicated whether these pictures were identical or not (conditions same vs. different). For stimuli examples see Appendix D.

Learning and immediate memory of faces

The task had two procedurally identical parts. In each part, fifteen faces were presented for 45 seconds. Participants were asked to memorize as many faces as possible. The recognition phase consisted of five runs and followed the study phase after two minutes, in which participants completed an unrelated intermediate task. Targets (learned faces) appeared once in each recognition run always coupled with new and highly similar distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated. To ensure further learning during the recognition phase, feedback was given after each response. Targets were highlighted by a green frame, regardless of the participants’ accuracy. For false responses, distracters were additionally crossed out with red bars labeled with the German word “falsch” (i.e., incorrect).

Delayed recognition of learned faces 1

Recognition performance for the total of 30 faces studied during the Learning and immediate memory of faces task was assessed in the same session approximately two and a half hours later. Learned faces appeared successively, together with completely new distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated.

Delayed recognition of learned faces 2

At the beginning of the second test session, approximately one week after learning, participants were asked to recognize the 30 faces learned during the Learning and immediate memory of faces task.

Eyewitness testimony In this incidental memory task two faces per trial were presented, one of which was already presented in two preceding tasks for face cognition speed. Participants were asked to indicate the previously seen face.

2

Face and object cognition across age

Name of Indicators Task description (continued)Recognition speed of learned faces

The task consisted of four parts. A study phase was followed by a delay and a recognition phase. Four faces were presented for one minute. The long presentation time was chosen to allow for robust encoding. During a delay time of approximately four minutes, participants completed a reasoning test. By recognition, four learned and four new faces appeared on the screen one at a time. Participants had to indicate whether the presented face is a learned or new face.

Delayed non-matching to sample faces vs. houses

A target face / house was presented for 1 s, followed by a 4 s delay. Thereafter, target face / house was presented together with a new face / house. Participants were asked to indicate the novel face / house.

Simultaneous matching of faces from different viewpoints

Two faces per trial were presented. They were arranged in the diagonal of the screen, one in frontal and the other in three-quarter view. Participants indicated whether the faces depicted the same person or different people.

Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves

Facial stimuli were divided horizontally into upper and lower halves. The upper half of a face was added to the lower half of another face, forming a composite face. Upper and lower halves were always from different people. In the aligned condition, face halves were attached to form a new normally structured face. In the non-aligned condition, the left or right face-edges of the top face-halves were positioned above the nose of the bottom face-halves. In each condition, two composite faces were presented in the diagonal of the screen. Participants compared the upper face-halves of two simultaneously presented aligned (50% of trials) or non-aligned faces and decided whether or not they originated from the same person. Aligned and non-aligned conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix F.

Simultaneous matching of face morphs vs. morphed housed

Face stimuli for any given trial were derived with the morphing method from the same two parent faces morphed together to varying degrees. Pairs of morphs were either similar or dissimilar (50% of trials). House stimuli were unaltered pictures of houses. Pairs depicted either the same house or different houses. Participants made a similarity decision for each pair.

Verification task (houses) Houses were presented one at a time. Participants indicated whether the presented house had only quadrangular windows or also some of another form.

3

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix C: Procedure of indicators FP 1 and FP 2 Adapted from “Structural Invariance and Age-Related Performance Differences in Face Cognition - Online Supplement” by A. Hildebrandt, W. Sommer, G. Herzmann and O. Wilhelm, 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, pp. 794-810. Copyright 2010 by the American Psychological Association.

Sequential matching of part-whole faces – conditions part and condition whole

Panel A – procedure of the part condition

Panel B – procedure of the whole condition

4

1. Target presented for 1000 ms

2. Interstimulus interval of 200 ms

XXX

3. Feature testing in isolation

Which face/house part matches the face you have seen before?

1. Target presented for 1000 ms

2. Interstimulus interval of 200 ms

XXX

3. Feature testing – whole face

Which face/house matches the face you have seen before?

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix D: Examples of stimuli used for the indicators FP 3, FP 4, OP 3 and OP 4

Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces – condition upright and condition inverted

Panel A Panel B

original face/upright condition eyes-nose relation altered/upright condition

Panel C Panel D

original face/inverted condition eyes-nose relation altered /inverted condition

5

Face and object cognition across age

Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated houses – condition upright and condition

inverted

Panel E Panel F

original house/upright condition manipulated distance between windows and roof/

upright condition

Panel G Panel H

original house/inverted condition manipulated distance between window ranks/

inverted condition

6

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix E: Examples of stimuli for indicators SFC 4 and SFC 5 Adapted from “Structural Invariance and Age-Related Performance Differences in Face Cognition - Online Supplement” by A. Hildebrandt, W. Sommer, G. Herzmann and O. Wilhelm, 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, pp. 794-810. Copyright 2010 by the American Psychological Association.

Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves – condition aligned and condition non-aligned

Panel A

condition aligned

Panel B

condition non-aligned

7