Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Summary and Evaluation
Conclusion
The Continuous-Task Procedure
The Study-Test Procedure
Experimental Design and Data Analysis
Data Transformation Procedures
Anoy a in Split-Plot Factorial Designs
Design
Procedure
Results
Introduction
Method
Subjects
Discussion
Results and Discussion
General Discussion
References
All Topics
Psychology

Individual differences in recognition memory for faces

Profile image of Patrick ChiroroPatrick Chiroro

1994

Abstract

Contemporary research on human memory has tended to disregard individual differences (Eysenck, 1977, 1983; Sternberg & French, 1990). However, there seems to be no empirical justification for this practice, especially in experimental situations where the stimuli that are used are 'socially relevant'. Human faces constitute one such category. Although there is strong evidence which suggests that people differ substantially in their ability to recognise faces in laboratory experiments (Baddeley & Woodhead, 1983) and in everyday situations (Schweich, van der Linden, Bredart, Bruyer, Neils & Schills, 1991), the sources of these differences are not clearly understood at present. In this thesis, individual differences in recognition memory for faces were examined using standard laboratory experimental techniques. Part I of this thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One provides a general introduction to face recognition research. In Chapter Two, past research on individual dif...

Related papers

The accuracy of perceptual memory for personally known faces
Serge Brédart

BACKGROUND • Traditional paradigm in which a familiar face has to be recognised among unfamiliar faces is not suited to test memory accuracy for highly familiar faces.

View PDFchevron_right
Individual Differences in Face Cognition: A Commentary on Logie
Karen Lander

Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Memory for faces: the effect of facial appearance and the context in which the face is encountered
Maurizio Codispoti

Psychological Research, 2014

We investigated the effects of appearance of emotionally neutral faces and the context in which the faces are encountered on incidental face memory. To approximate real-life situations as closely as possible, faces were embedded in a newspaper article, with a headline that specified an action performed by the person pictured. We found that facial appearance affected memory so that faces perceived as trustworthy or untrustworthy were remembered better than neutral ones. Furthermore, the memory of untrustworthy faces was slightly better than that of trustworthy faces. The emotional context of encoding affected the details of face memory. Faces encountered in a neutral context were more likely to be recognized as only familiar. In contrast, emotionally relevant contexts of encoding, whether pleasant or unpleasant, increased the likelihood of remembering semantic and even episodic details associated with faces. These findings suggest that facial appearance (i.e., perceived trustworthiness) affects face memory. Moreover, the findings support prior evidence that the engagement of emotion processing during memory encoding increases the likelihood that events are not only recognized but also remembered.

View PDFchevron_right
Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces
John Vokey

Memory & Cognition, 1992

View PDFchevron_right
The relations between facial features, facial impression, and recognition memory for faces
Masaomi Oda

The Japanese Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2004

The present study investigated relationships among physical features, impressions, and recognition memory for faces. The stimuli were pictures of male and female faces. First, the sizes, lengths, and angles of physical features of the faces were measured, and then a principal components analysis was performed. Second, 108 university students evaluated the impressions of the faces by the semantic differential technique, and then a factor analysis was performed. Third, 80 university students performed recognition memory tasks for the faces. Subsequently, the analyses of correlations, partial correlations, and ANOVA were performed on the principal component scores of the physical features, the factor scores of impressions, and the recognition performance. The results of the analyses showed that: (a) the impression of facial uniqueness formed from eyes and eyebrows facilitated recognition memory for the faces and (b) the physical features of a small mouth and a round jaw facilitated recognition memory.

View PDFchevron_right
The face typicality-recognizability relationship: Encoding or retrieval locus?
Alice O'Toole

Memory & Cognition, 2000

Using a crossover recognition memory testing paradigm, we tested whether the effects on face recognition of the memorability component of face typicality are due primarily to the encoding process occurring during study or to the retrieval process occurring at test. At study, faces were either veridical in form or at moderate (Experiment 1) or extreme (Experiment 2) levels of caricature. The variable of degree of facial caricature at study was crossed with the degree of caricature at test. The primary contribution of increased memorability to increased hit rate was through increased distinctiveness at study. Increased distinctiveness at test contributed to substantial reductions in the false alarm rate, too. Signal detection analyses confirmed that the mirror effects obtained were primarily stimulus/memory-based, rather than decision-based. Contrary to the conclusion of Vokey and Read (1992), we found that increments in face memorability produced increments in face recognition that were due at least as much to enhanced encoding of studied faces as they were to increased rejection of distractor faces.

View PDFchevron_right
Memory processes in facial recognition and recall
Michelle Cohen

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978

The encoding processes of recognition and recall for line-drawn faces were investigated. Subjects randomly received three-alternative forced-choice tests of recognition and probe recall of 20 male faces. Between each inspection and test, subjects performed an interference task for 10 sec. The interference tasks consisted of either identifying the missing facial feature in line drawings or in photographs, or correctly identifying the misspelled words describing different facial features. The results indicate that recognition performance was higher than proberecall performance for all groups. The analysis of the recognition data suggests that recognition ability decreased as the similarity of the interference task to the target increased. This finding suggests that faces are encoded using visual rather than verbal imagery.

View PDFchevron_right
On the organization of face memory
Hisao Nishijo

International Congress Series, 2003

When two 3D objects are sequentially presented, the time to judge whether they are identical is proportional to the angle between the objects implying that humans might rotate mental images of objects for identification. Similar effects were also reported for faces. In the present study we investigated the effects of familiarity of faces on reaction times in two cognitive tasks. (1) Delayed matching-to-sample task based on face identification (I-DMS task): a sample was followed by a test (match or nonmatch) after a delay. The stimuli were pictures of people's faces that were either unfamiliar or familiar to the subject. The subjects were required to identify the same person instructed in the sample; match consisted of seven images of the person viewed from seven different angles. We found that reaction times were proportional to the angle between sample and match in the I-DMS task for both unfamiliar and familiar faces, although reaction times were longer for unfamiliar faces. (2) Pair association task based on face identification (I-PA task): subjects learned four paired associates in advance of test (pre-learning): the pair consisted of a neutral geometric pattern and a human face viewed from À 45j or + 45j (obligue views). In the test, a stimuli pair was sequentially presented and the subject was required to judge whether the pair was correct or not. The correct pair consisted of the pattern and faces of the person who was associated with the pattern in the prelearning, which could be one of six images of the person viewed from six different angles. In the I-PA task we found that reaction times were influenced by the pre-learning for both unfamiliar and familiar faces. For unfamiliar faces but not for familiar faces, pre-learning shortened reaction time for the view opposite to the view that was encoded in the pre-learning. Taken together, these results indicated that representations were different between unfamiliar and familiar faces. As faces become familiar from unfamiliar, transition of representations might take place.

View PDFchevron_right
Beneficial effects of verbalization and visual distinctiveness on remembering and knowing faces
Ryan Dench

Memory & Cognition, 2006

We examined the effect of verbally describing faces upon visual memory. In particular, we examined the locus of the facilitative effects of verbalization by manipulating the visual distinctiveness of the to-be-remembered faces and using the remember/know procedure as a measure of recognition performance (i.e., remember vs. know judgments). Participants were exposed to distinctive faces intermixed with typical faces and described (or not, in the control condition) each face following its presentation. Subsequently, the participants discriminated the original faces from distinctive and typical distractors in ayes/no recognition decision and made remember/know judgments. Distinctive faces elicited better discrimination performance than did typical faces. Furthermore, for both typical and distinctive faces, better discrimination performance was obtained in the description than in the control condition. Finally, these effects were evident for both recollection- and familiarity-based recognition decisions. We argue that verbalization and visual distinctiveness independently benefit face recognition, and we discuss these findings in terms of the nature of verbalization and the role of recollective and familiarity-based processes in recognition.

View PDFchevron_right
Simultaneous Versus Sequential Presentation in Testing Recognition Memory for Faces
Henry Roediger

The American Journal of Psychology, 2015

Three experiments examined the issue of whether faces could be better recognized in a simultaneous test format (2- alternative forced choice [2afc]) or a sequential test format (yes–no). all experiments showed that when target faces were present in the test, the simultaneous procedure led to superior performance (area under the roc curve), whether lures were high or low in similarity to the targets. However, when a target- absent condition was used in which no lures resembled the targets but the lures were similar to each other, the simultaneous procedure yielded higher false alarm rates (experiments 2 and 3) and worse overall performance (experiment 3). this pattern persisted even when we excluded responses that participants opted to withhold rather than volunteer. We conclude that for the basic recognition procedures used in these experiments, simultaneous presentation of alternatives (2afc) generally leads to better discriminability than does sequential presentation (yes–no) when...

View PDFchevron_right

References (257)

  1. Aaronson, D. & Watts, B. (1978). Extension of Grier's computational formulas for A' and B" to below chance performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102,439-442.
  2. Adcock, C.J. & Webberly, M. (1971). Primary mental abilities. Journal of General Psychology, 84, 229-243.
  3. Ahron, W.A.Jnr. & Pastore, R.E. (1977). Procedures for computing d' and B". Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, 9, 533-537.
  4. Anderson, J.R. & Paulson, R. (1978). Interference In memory for pictorial information. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 178-202.
  5. Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M.(l968). Human memory: A proposed system and control processes. In K.W. Spence & J .T. Spence, (eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 2. London: Academic Press.
  6. Baddeley, A.D. & Woodhead, M.M. (1983). Improving face recognition. In S.M.A. Lloyed-Bostock & B.R. Clifford, (eds.), Evaluating Eyewitness Evidence. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
  7. Baker, E. (1967). Perceiver variables involved in the recognition of faces. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of London.
  8. Bahrick, H.P. (1984). Memory for people. In J.E. Harris & P. Morris, (eds.), Everyday Memory, Actions and Absentmindedness. Academic Press: New York.
  9. Bahrick, H.P., Bahrick, P.O. & Wittlinger, R.P. (1975). Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 54-75.
  10. Barkowitz, P. & Brigham, J.C. (1982). Recognition of faces: Own-race bias, incentive and time delay. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 255 -268.
  11. Baron, R.1. (1981). Mechanisms of human facial recognition. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 137-178.
  12. Bartlett, J.C., Hurry, S. & Thomley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces. Memory and Cognition, 12, 219-228.
  13. Beiik-Doctor, M.A. & Elshout, J.1. (1969). Veldafhankelijkheid engeheugen met betrekking tot sociaal relevant en social niet-relevant material. Tidschrift voor de Psychologie en baar Grensgebieden, 24, 267-279.
  14. Benton, A.L. & Gordon, M.C. (1971). Correlates of facial recognition. Transactions of the American Neurological Association, 96, 91-96.
  15. Blaney, R.L. & Winograd, E. (1978). Developmental differences in children's memory for faces. Developmental Psychology, 14,441-442.
  16. Borges, M.A. & Vaughn, L.S. (1977). Cognitive differences between the sexes in memory for names and faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 317-318.
  17. Bomstein, B. (1963). Prosopagnosia: In L. Halpern (ed.). Problems of Dynamic Neurology. Hadassah Medical School: Jerusalem.
  18. Bothwell, R.K., Brigham, J.C. & Malpass, (1989). Cross-racial identification of faces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15( 1), 19-25.
  19. Brigham, J .C. (1986). The influence of race on face recognition. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe & A. Young, (eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
  20. Brigham, J .C. & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do they look alike? The Effect of race, sex, experience and attitudes on the ability to recognise faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306-318.
  21. Brigham, J .C., Maas, A., Snyder, L.D. & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673-681.
  22. Brigham, J .C. & Malpass, R.S. (1985). The role of experience and contact in the recognition of own-and other-race faces. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 139-155.
  23. Brigham, J.C. & Williamson, N.L. (1979). Cross-racial recognition age: When you are over 60, "Do they still look alike?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 218-222.
  24. Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon: Oxford.
  25. Brophy, A.L. (1985). Approximation of the inverse normal distribution function. Behaviour Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 17,415-417.
  26. Brown, A.L. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about and knowing how to know. In H.W. Reese (cd.). Advances in Child Development and Behaviour. Academic Press.
  27. Bruce, V. (1979). Searching for politicians: An information processing approach to face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 373-395.
  28. Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73,105-116.
  29. Bruce, V. (1985). Recognising familiar faces. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe & A. Young, (eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
  30. Bruce, V. (1986). Influence of familiarity on the processing of faces. Perception, 15,387-397.
  31. Bruce, V. (1988). Recognising Faces. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd. Publishers: United Kingdom.
  32. Bruce, V. (1989). The structure of faces. In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis, (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
  33. Bruce, V. (1 990a). Face recognition. In M. Eysenck (ed.). Cognitive Psychology: An International Review. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
  34. Bruce, V. (1 990b). Perceiving and recognising faces. Mind & Language, 5 (4). 342-363.
  35. Bruce, V. & Burton, M. (1990). Computer recognition of faces. In A. W. Young & H.D. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
  36. Bruce, V. & Green, P.R. (1990). Visual perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology (2nd Ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd Publishers: England.
  37. Bruce, V. & Valentine, T. (1985). Identity priming in the recognition of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 373-383.
  38. Bruce, V., Valentine, T. & Baddeley, A.D. (19R7). The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 109 -120.
  39. Bruce, V. & Young, A.W. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305-327.
  40. Bruyer, R. Laterre, C., Seron, X., Feyereisen, P., Strypstein, E., Pierrard, E. & Rectum, D. (1983). A case of prosopagnosia with some preserved covert remembrance of familiar faces. Brain alld Cognition, 2, 257-284.
  41. Calis, G. & Mens, L. (1986). Primary stages in single glance face recognition: expression and identity. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe and A.W. Young (eds.). Aspects of Face Processing, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
  42. Campbell, R., Landis, T. & Regard, Regard, M. (1987). Face recognition and Lip- reading: A Neurological dissociation. Brain.
  43. Carey, S. (1981). The development of face perception. In G. Davies, H.D. Ellis & J. Shepherd (eds.). Perceiving and Rememhering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  44. Carey, S. & Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configura! representation of faces. Science, 195,213-324.
  45. Carey, S., Diamond, R. & Woods, B. (1980). The development of face recognition -A Maturational component? Developmental Psychology, 16, 257-
  46. Carroll, J.B. (1983). Studying individual differences in cognitive abilities: Through and beyond factor analysis. In R.F. Schmeck (ed.). Individual Differences in Cognition. Academic Press: New York.
  47. Caroo, A.W. (1986). Other-race recognition: A comparison of black American and African subjects. Perception and Motor Skills, 62, 135 -138.
  48. Caroo, A.W. (1987). Recognition of faces as a function of race, attitudes and reported cross-racial friendships. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 319-325.
  49. Chance, 1. E. & Goldstein, A.G. (1981). Depth of processing in response to own- race and other-race faces. Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 475 -480.
  50. Church, V. & Winograd, E. (1985). Face recognition is not unique: Evidence from individual differences. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe & A. Young, (eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
  51. Cohen, G. (1989). Memory in the Real World Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd: England.
  52. Cooper, L. & Mumaw, R.J. (1985). Spatial Aptitude. In R.F. Dillon (cd.). Individual Differences in Cognition, Vol. 2. Academic Press: New York.
  53. Clifford, B.R. & Bull, R. (1978). The Psychology of Person Identification, Routledge & Kegan: London.
  54. Clifford, B.R. & Richards, V.J. (1977). Comparison of recall by policeman and civilians under conditions of long and short duration of exposure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45,503-512.
  55. Clifford, B.R. & Scott, 1. (1978). Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,352-359.
  56. Cronbach, L.1. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12,271-284.
  57. Cross, J.F., Cross, J. & Daley, J. (1971). Sex, race, age and beauty as factors in recognition of faces. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 393-396.
  58. Crutchfield, R.S., Woodworth, D.G. & Albrecht, R.E. (1958). Perceptual Performance and the Effective Person. (W ADC-TN-58-60). Lackland Airforce.
  59. Damasio, A.R. Damasio, H. & Van Hoesen, G.W. (1982). Prosopagnosia: Anatomic basis and behavioural mechanisms. Neurology, 32, 331-341.
  60. Davies, G., Ellis, H. & Shepherd, 1. (1981). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  61. de Renzi, E. (1989). Prosopagnosia: A multi-stage, specific disorder? In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, p.27 -36.
  62. de Shonen, & Mathivet, (1987). Hemispheric asymmetry for face processing in 4 month old infants. Paper presented to the European Society for Cognitice Psychology. Madrid, September.
  63. Deffenbacher, K. A., Carr, T.H. & Len, J.R. (1981). Memory for words, pictures and faces: Retroactive interference, forgetting and reminiscence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 299-304.
  64. Deffenbacher, K.A. & Homey, 1. (1981). Eyewitness testimony. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd, (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  65. Devine, P.O. & Malpass, R.S. (1985). Orienting strategies in differential face recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 33 -40.
  66. Diamond, R. & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: Effect of expertise. Journal o/Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
  67. Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multi-range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1-42.
  68. Ellis, H.D. (1975). Recognising faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 409- 426. Ellis, H.D. (1981). Introduction. In O. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd, (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  69. Ellis, H.D. (1981). In O. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd, (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  70. Ellis, H.D. (1983). The role of the right hemisphere in face perception. In A.W. Young (ed.). Functions 0/ the right cerebral hemisphere. Academic Press: London, 33-64.
  71. Ellis, H.D. (1986a). Processes underlying face recognition. In R. Bruyer (ed.). The Neuropsychology 0/ Face perception and Face Expression, p.1-27. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd: England.
  72. Ellis, H.D. (1986b). Introduction to Aspects of Face Processing: Ten Questions in need of answers. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe & A. Young, (eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht.
  73. Ellis, H.D. (1990). Developmental trends in face recognition. The Psychologist, 3, 114-119.
  74. Ellis, H.D. & Deregowski, J.B. (1981). Within race and between-race recognition of transformed and untransformed faces. American Journal of Psychology, 94, 27-
  75. Ellis, H.D., Deregowski, J.B. & Shepherd, J. W. (1975). Description of white and black faces by white and black subjects. International Journal of Psychology, 10, 119-123.
  76. Ellis, H.D. & Flin, R.H. (1990). Encoding and storage effects in seven-year olds' and ten-year olds' memory for faces. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 77-92.
  77. Ellis, H.D. Jeeves, M.A. Newcombe, F. & Young, A. (eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht.
  78. Ellis, H.D. & Shephered, J. (1992). Face memory: Theory and Research. In M. Gruneberg and P. Morris (eds.). Aspects of Memory, Routledge: London.
  79. Ellis, H.D., Shephered, J. W. & Bruce, A. (1973). The effects of age and sex upon adolscents' recognition of faces. Journal of Gelletic Psyclw/ogy, 123, 173 -174.
  80. Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J. W., Gibling, F. & Shepherd, (1988). Stimulus factors in face learning. In M.M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (eds.). Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research Issues, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
  81. Ellis, H.D. & Young, A.W. (1989). Are faces special? In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht.
  82. Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T. (1990). Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd: England.
  83. Evans, J.B.T. (1981). A reply to Morris. British Journal of Psychology, 72,469- 470.
  84. Evans, J.B.T. (1990). Verbal reports of cognitive strategies: A note on Marquer and Perreira. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A(1), 169-170.
  85. Exline, R. (1963). Explorations in the processes of person perception: Visual interaction in relating to competition, sex and need for affiliation. Journal of Personality, 31, 1-20.
  86. Eysenck, M.W.(1977). Human Memory: Theory, Research and Indin•dual Differences. Pergamon Press: Oxford.
  87. Eysenck, M.W. (1983). Individual differences in human memory. In A. Mayes (ed.). Memory in Animals and Humans. Van Rostrend: Reinhold.
  88. Eysenck, M.W. (1988). A Handbook o/Cognitive Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd: England.
  89. Feinman, S. & Entwisle, D.R. (1976). Children's ability to recognise children's faces. Child Development, 47, 506-510.
  90. Fisher, R.A. (1949). The Design of Experiments. Oliver & Boyd Ltd: Edinburgh.
  91. Flin, R.H. (1980). Age effects in children's memory for unfamiliar faces. Developmental Psychology, 16, 373-374.
  92. Flin, R.H. (1983). The development of face recognition. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aberdeen University.
  93. Flin, R.H. (1985). Development of face recognition: An encoding switch? British Journal Psychology, 76, 123-134.
  94. Flin, R.H. & Dziurawiec, (1989). Development of face recognition. In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht.
  95. Freeman, M.F. & Tukey, J.W. (1950). Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 607 -611.
  96. Fruzzetti, A.E., Toland, K., Taylor, S.A. & Loftus, E.F. (1992). Memory and eyewitness testimony. In M.Gruneberg and P. Morris (eds.). Aspects of Memorv (2nd Ed.). Routledge: London.
  97. Gardner, R.M. & Boice, R. (1986). A computer program to generate signal detection theory values for sensitivity and response bias. Behaviour Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 18,54-56.
  98. Gilhooly, K.J. & Logie, R.H. (1980). Methods and designs: Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12(4), 395-427.
  99. Goldstein, A.G. (1965). Learning of inverted and normally oriented faces In children and adults. Psychonomic Science, 3,447 -448.
  100. Golstein, A.G. (l979a). Race-related variation of facial features: Anthropometric data I. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 13, 187 -190.
  101. Golstein, A.G. (l979b). Facial feature variation: Anthropometric data II. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 191 -193.
  102. Goldstein, A.G. & Chance, J. (1964). Recognition of children's faces. Child Development, 35,129-136.
  103. Goldstein, A.G. & Chance, J. (1971). Visual recognition memory for complex configurations. Perception and Psychophysics, 9, 239-241.
  104. Goldstein, A.G. & Chance, J. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory. Journal Experimental Psychology, 105,47-59.
  105. Goodnough, D.R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 675-694.
  106. Goren, C.C., Sarty, M. Wu, P. (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by new-born infants. Paediatrics, 56, 554-545.
  107. Glaser, R. (1967). Some implications of previous work on learning and individual differences. In R.M. Gagne (ed.). Learning and Individual Differences. Merril: Ohio.
  108. Green, D. M. & Swets, J.A. (1966). Si~nal Detection Theory and Psychophysics.
  109. Wiley & Sons: New York.
  110. Grier, J.B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing fonnulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 424-429.
  111. Gross, S.R. (1987). Loss of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification and proof of guilt. Journal of Legal Studies, XVI, 396 -453.
  112. Gruneberg, M.M., Morris, P.E. & Sykes, R.N. (1978). Practical Aspects of Memory. Academic Press: London.
  113. Gruneberg, M.M., Morris, P.E. (1979). Applied Problems in Memory. Academic Press: London.
  114. Gruneberg, M. and Morris, P. (1992). Aspects of Memory (2nd Ed.). Routledge: London.
  115. Haber, R. N. & Myers, B.L. (1980). Memory for pictograms, pictures and words separately and all mixed up. Perception, 11, 57-64.
  116. Harris, GJ. & Fleer, R.E. (1972). Serial recognition memory by retardates of half or whole faces in two orientations. Perception and Motor Skills, 36, 476-478.
  117. Harris, G.l. & Fleer, R.E. (1973). Recognition memory for faces by retardates and normals. Perception and Motor Skills, 34, 755-758.
  118. Hartley, H.O. (1940). Testing the homogenicty of a set of variances. Biometrika, 31, 249-255.
  119. Hartley, H.O. (1950). The maximum F-ratio as a short-cut test for homogeniety of variance. Biometrika, 37, 308-312.
  120. Hay, D.C. & Young, A.W. (1982). The human face. In A.W. Ellis (ed.). Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Functions. Academic Press: London.
  121. Heim, A.W. (1968). AH5 Group Test of Hi~h Grade Intelligence. NFR-Nelson Publishing: Berkshire.
  122. Hochberg, J. & Galper. R.E. (1967). Recognition of faces. 1. An Exploratory study. Psychollomic Science, 9, 619-620.
  123. Hodos, W. (1970). Nonparametric index of response bias for use in detection and recognition experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 351-354.
  124. Hoffman, C. & Kagan, S. (1977). Field dependence and facial recogniton. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 177-194.
  125. Hogarth, W. (1853). The Analysis of Beauty. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  126. Howell, D.C. (1989). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. PWS- Kent Publishers: Kent.
  127. Hoyenga, K.B. & Hoyenga, K.T. (1979). The Question of Sex Differences. Little Brown & Co.: Boston.
  128. Huer, F., Fischman, D. & Reisberg, D. (19H6). Why does vivid imagery hurt colour memory? Canadian Journal of PsycholoRY, 40, 161-175.
  129. Humphrey, G.W. & Bruce, v. (1989). Visual cognition: computational,experimental and neurological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd: Sussex.
  130. Johnson, N .L. & Leone, F.C. (1964). Statistics and Experimental Design In Engineering and Physical Sciences. Wiley & Sons: New York.
  131. Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1985). Cognitive co-ordinates systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92, 137 -1 71.
  132. Kaess, W.A. & Witryol, S.L. (1955). Memory for names and faces: a characteristic of social intelligence. journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 437-462.
  133. Kirk, R.E. (1968). Experimental design: procedures for the behavioural sciences. Brooks/Cole: Belmont.
  134. Kohonen, T., Oja, E. & Lehtio, P. (1981). Storage and processing of infonnation in distributed memory systems. In a.E. Hinton & J.A. Anderson (eds.). Parallel Models of Associative Memory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale.
  135. Kornorski, J. (1967). Integrative Activity of the Brain: An Interdisciplinary Approach. University of Chigago Press: Chicago.
  136. Kroll, 1.K. & Potter, M.C. (1984). Recognising words, pictures and concepts: A comparison of lexical, object and reality decisions. journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 39-66.
  137. Kuhlman, C.K. (1960). Visual imagery 10 children. Unpublished PhD thesis. Ratcliff College.
  138. Kurucz, J., Feldmar, a. (1979). Proso-affccticc agnosia as a symptom of cerebral organic disease. journal of American Geriatrics Society. 27.225 -230.
  139. Kurucz, J., Feldmar, G. & Werner, W. (1979). Prosopo-affective agnosia associated with chronic organic brain syndrome. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 27, 91-95.
  140. Lansman, M. (1981). Ability factors and speed of information processing. In M. Friedman, J.P. Das & N. O'Conner (eds.). Intelligence and Learning. Plenum: New York.
  141. Lansman, M., Donaldson, G., Hunt, E. & Yantis, S. (1982). Ability Factors and Cognitive Processes. Intelligence, 6, 347-386.
  142. Laughery, K.R. Fezzler, P.K., Leronovitz D.R. & Yoblick D.A. (1974). Time delay and similarity effects in face recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 490-496.
  143. Lavrakas, P.J., Buri, J .R. & Mayzner, M.S. (1976). A perspective on the recognition of other-race faces. Perception and Psychophysics, 20,475 -481.
  144. Leehy, S., Carey, S. Diamond, R. & Cahn, A. (1978). Upright and inverted faces: the right hemisphere knows the difference. Cortex, 14,411-419.
  145. Light, K.L., Kayra-Stuart, F. & Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 212-228.
  146. Lindsay, D.S., Jack. P.C. & Christian. M.A. (1991). Other-race Face PerceptionJournal of Applied Psyclwlog)'. 76(4). 587-589.
  147. Lindsay, R.C.L. & Wells, G.L. (1983). What do really know about cross-race eyewitness testimony? In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock and B.R. Clifford (eds.). Evaluating eyewitness evidence: Recent Psychological Research and New Perspectives, John Wiley: New York.
  148. Loftus, G.R. (1982). Picture memory methodology. In C.R. Puff (ed.). Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition. Academic Press: New York. (Chapter 9).
  149. Lohman, D.F. (1979). Spatial ability: a review and re-analysis of the correlational literature. In C.A. Stanford (ed.). Aptitude Research Project. Stanford University School of Education.
  150. Lohman, D.F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In RJ.
  151. Sternberg (ed.). Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence. Academic Press: New York.
  152. Lohman, D.F. & Kyllonen, P.C. (1983). Individual differences in solution strategy on spatial tasks. In R.F. Dillon & R.R. Schmeck (eds.). Individual Differences in Cognition. Academic Press: New York.
  153. Lohman, D.F., Pelligrino, J.L., Alderton, P. & Regian, J.W. (1987). Dimensions and components of individual differences in spatial ability. In S.H. Irvine & S.E. Newstead (eds.).lntelligence and Cognition: Contemporary Frames of Reference. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht.
  154. Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual Choice Behaviour. Wiley: New York.
  155. Luce, R.D. (1963). Detection and Recognition. In R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush & E. Galanter (eds.). Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 1. pp 103-189. Wiley: New York.
  156. Luce, T. (1974). Blacks, whites and yellows: They all look alike to me. Psychology Today, 8,105-108.
  157. Macmillan, N.A. & Creelman, C.D. (1990). Response bias: characteristics of detection theory, threshold and "non-parametric" indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 401-413.
  158. Macmillan, N.A. & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  159. Malone, D.R., Morris, H.H., Kay, M.C. & Levin, H.S. (1982). Prosopagnosia: A double dissociation between recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Journal of Neurology: Neurology & Surgery. 45, 820-822.
  160. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Training in face recognition. In G.Davies, H.Ellis, and J.Shephered (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press:
  161. London.
  162. Malpass, R. S. & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition of faces of own and other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13. 330 -334.
  163. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognising: The judgement of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252-272.
  164. Marks, D. (1983). Mental imagery and consciousness: A theoretical review. In A. Sheik (ed.). Imagery: Current Theory, Research and Application. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
  165. Marquer, J. & Perreira, M. (1990). Reaction times in the study of strategies in sentence-picture verification: A reconstruction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A(1), 147-168.
  166. Marr, D. (1976). Early processIng of visual infonnation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B275, 483-524.
  167. Marr, D. (1977). Analysis of occluding contour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 197,441-495.
  168. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. Freeman: San Francisco.
  169. Marr, D. & Hildreth, E. (1980). Theory of edge detection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B200, 269-294.
  170. Marr, D. & Ullman, S. (1981). Directional selectivity and its use In early processing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B211, 151-180.
  171. Martin, M. (1986). Ageing and patterns of change in everyday memory and cognition. Human Intelligence. 5, 63-74.
  172. Martin, M. (1988). Verbal and spatial encoding of visual stimuli: the effects of sex, hemisphere and yes-no judgements. Cortex, 14, 227-233.
  173. Marx, M.A. & Nelson, J.A. (1974). Sex differences in face-name recognition memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
  174. McKelvie, SJ. (1978). Sex differences in facial memory. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris and R.N. Sykes (eds.). Practical Aspects of Memory. Academic Press: London & New York.
  175. McKelvie, S. & Rohrberg, M. (1978). Individual differences in reported vividness of visual images and cognitive performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 451-458.
  176. McKelvie, S. (1973). The meaningfulness and meanmg of schematic faces. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 343-348.
  177. McKelvie, S. (1984). Reported visual images for faces and facial recognition memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 825-826.
  178. Messick, S. & Damarin, (1964). Cognitive style and memory for faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 313-319.
  179. Morgan MJ. (1984). Computational theory of ViSIon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 157-165.
  180. Morris, P.E. (1981). Why Evans is wrong in criticising introspective reports of subjects strategies. British Journal of PsycJzolo~y, 72,465-468.
  181. Mueller, J.H., Heesacker, M. & Ross, MJ. (1984). Likeability of targets and distracters in face recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 235-247.
  182. Murdock, B.B. (1965). Signal detection theory and short term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70,443-447.
  183. Murdock, B.B. (1982). Recognition memory. In C.R. Puff (ed.). Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition. Academic Press: New York.
  184. Mumaw, RJ. & Pelligrino, J.W. (1984). Individual differences in complex spatial processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,920-939.
  185. Mueller, J.H. & Thompson. W.B. (1988). Individual differences in face memory.
  186. In M.M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (eds.). Practical aspects of memory: Current Research Issues, Vol. I. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
  187. Minton, H. L. & Shneider, F.W. (1980). Differential Psychology. Waveland Press Inc: Illinois.
  188. Neale, J.M. & Liebert, R.M. (1986). Science and Behaviour: An Introdution 10 methods of reasearch. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
  189. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. Appleton-Century Crofts: New York.
  190. O'Toole, A.J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K.A. & Bartlett, J.C. (1991). Classifying faces by race and age using autoassociative memory trained for recognition. Proccedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence-Erbaum: Hillsdale.
  191. O'Toole, A.J., Deffenbacher, K.A., Abdi, H. & Bartlett, J.C. (in press). Simulating the "other-race effect" as a problem in perceptualleaming. Connection Science.
  192. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. Holt, Renehart & Winston: London.
  193. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  194. Paivio, A. (1990). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current issues. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45,255-287.
  195. Phillips, R.J. (1979). Some exploratory experiments on memory for photographs of faces. Acta Psychologica, 43, 39-56.
  196. Phillips, R.J. (1978). Recognition, recall and imagery of faces. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris & R.N. Sykes (eds.). Practical Aspects of Memory. Academic Press: New York.
  197. Phillips, R.1. & Rawles, R.E. (1979). Recognition of upright and inverted faces: A correlational study. Perception, 8, 577-583.
  198. Pizzamiglio, L. & Zocollatti, P. (1981). Sex and cognitive influence on visual hemifield superiority for face and letter recognition. Cortex, 17, 215-226.
  199. Pollack, I. & Norman, D.A. (1964). A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments. Psychonomic Science, 1, 125-126.
  200. Poltrock, S.E. & Brown, P. (1984). Individual differences in visual imagery and spatial ability. Intelligence, 8, 93-138.
  201. Rae, G. (1976). A non-parametric measure of recognition performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 98.
  202. Reason, J.T. & Lucus, D. (1984). Using cognitive diaries to investigate occurring memory blocks. In J. Harris and P. E. Morris (eds.). Everyday Memory, Actions and Absentmindedness. Academic Press: London.
  203. Reason, J.T. & Mycielska, K. (1982). Absent-minded? The Psychology of Mental Lapses and Everyday Errors. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey.
  204. Reisberg, D., Culver, C., Heur, F. & Finchman, D. (1986). Visual memory: When imagery vividness makes a difference. Journa/ of Menta/Imagery, 10.51-74.
  205. Reisberg, D. & Leak, S. (1987). Visual imagery and memory for appearance: Does Clarke Gable or George C. Scott have bushier eyebrows? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 521-526.
  206. Rhodes, G. (1985). Lateralized processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 249-271.
  207. Rhodes, G., Brennan, S. & Carey, S. (1987). Identifications and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 473-497.
  208. Rhodes, G. & Linskey, M. (1990). Face perception: attributions, asymmetries and stereotypes. British Journal of Psychology, 29, 375-377.
  209. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Taylor, K. & Tan, S. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 273-283.
  210. Richardson, J. (1980). Mental Imagery and I/uman Memory. St. Martin Press: New York.
  211. Robertson, C.C. & Morgan, B.J.J. (1990). Aspects of design and analysis in signal detection experiments. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 7-14.
  212. Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and Form. Academic Press: New York.
  213. Rock, I. (1974). The perception of disoriented figures. Scientific American, 230. 78-85.
  214. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioural Research: Methods and Data Analysis, McGraw Hill Inc.: New York
  215. Salthouse, T.A., Babcock, R.L., Mitchell, D.R.D., Palmon, R. & Skovronek, E. (1990). Sources of individual differences in spatial ability. Intelligence, 14, 187- 230. Scapinello, K.E. & Y armey, A.D. (1970). The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition memory of pictorial stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 21, 329-330.
  216. Scheffe, H. (1953). A Method of Judging all Contrasts 10 the Analysis of Variance, Biometrika, 40, 87 -104.
  217. Schweich, Van der Linden, Bredart, S., Bruyer, R., NeBs, B. & Schills, J.P. (1991). Daily life difficulties in person recognition reported by young and elderly subjects._Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5.
  218. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
  219. Sergent. J. (1989). Structural processing of faces. In A. W. Young & H.D. Ellis (ed.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht.
  220. Shapiro, P.N. & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
  221. Shepherd, J. (1981). Social factors in face recognition. In G. Davies, E. Ellis. J Shepherd (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  222. Shepherd, J. & Ellis, H.D. (1973). The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces. American Journal of Psychology, 86, 627-633.
  223. Shepherd, J. & Ellis, H.D. (1981). Introduction. In G. Davies, E. Ellis, J Shepherd (eds.). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. Academic Press: New York.
  224. Shepherd, J. W. & Deregowski, J.B. (1981). Races and faces -A comparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans to faces of the same and different races. British Journal of Psychology, 20, 125-] 33.
  225. Shephered, J.W., Deregowski, J.B. & Ellis, H.D. (1974). A cross-cultural study of recognition memory for faces. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 205 -212.
  226. Shepard, R.N. & Teghtsoonian, M. (1961). Retention of Information under Conditions Approaching a Steady State. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62. 302 -309.
  227. Strong, E.K. (1912). The Effect of Length of Series Upon Recognition Memory. Psychological Review, 19,447 -462.
  228. Sternberg, R.J. & French, P.A. (1990). Intelligence and Cognition. In \1.W. Eysenck (ed.). Cognitive PsycholoKv: An International Review. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. pp 57-103.
  229. Thompson, D. M. (1984). Context effects in recognition memory: developmental aspects. Paper presented at the Experimental Psychology Conference, Deakin University, Australia.
  230. Thomson, R. (1968). The Pelican History of Psychology. Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd: Aylesbury.
  231. Toyama, J.S. (1975). The effect of orientation on recognition of faces: A reply to Yin. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Waterloo, Canada.
  232. Tukey, J.W. (1949). Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance, Biometrics, 5, 99 -114.
  233. Valentine, T. (1986). Encoding processes in face recognition. Unpuhlished PhD Thesis. University of Nottingham, England.
  234. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471-491.
  235. Valentine, T. (l991a). Representation and process in face recognition. In R. Watt (ed.). Vision and Visual Dysfunction. Macmillan.
  236. Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R. & Michels, K.M. (l990).Statistical Principles III Experimental Design (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Inc.: New York.
  237. Winograd, E. (1981). Elaboration and distinctiveness In memory for faces. Journal o/Experimental Psychology, 7,181-190.
  238. Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodnough, D.R., Karp, S.A. (1974). Psychological differentiation: Studies 0/ development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Potomac, Mol.
  239. Woodhead, M.M. & Baddeley, A.D. (1981). Individual differences and memory for faces, pictures and words. Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 368-370.
  240. Woodhead, M.M., Baddeley, A.D. & Simmonds, D.C.V. (1979). On training people to recognise faces. Ergonomics, 22, 333-343.
  241. Yanney, A.D. (1973). I recognise your face but I cannot remember your name: Further evidence of the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Memory and Cognition, 1, 287-290.
  242. Yanney, A.D. (1975). Socio-emotional factors in recall and recognition of faces. Paper presented at the Annual MeetinR of the Mid-Western Psychological Association, Chicago.
  243. Yanney, A.D. (1978). The effects of attractiveness, feature saliency, and liking on memory for faces. In M. Crook and G. Wilson (eds.). Love and Attraction: An International Conference, Pergamon Press: Oxford.
  244. Yanney, A.D. (1979). The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony. The Free Press: New York.
  245. Yanney, A.D. (1984). Age as a factor in eyewitness testimony. In G. L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (eds.). Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. pp 142-154.
  246. Yanney, A.D. & Paskaruk, S. (1974). The influence of affect, ego-involvement and sex differences in recognition offaces. Unpublished manuscript, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
  247. Yin, R.K. (1969). Looking at upside down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81,141-145.
  248. Yin, R.K. (1970). Face recognition: A dissociable ability? Neuropsychologia, 23, 395-402.
  249. Young, A., Hay, D. & Ellis, A.W. (1985). The faces that launched a thousand slips: Everyday difficulties and errors in recognising people. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 495-523.
  250. Young, A.W. & Bruce, V. (1991). Perceptual categories and the computation of "Grandmother". The European Journal of CO~lliti\'e Psychology. 3( 1), 5-49.
  251. Young, A.W. & Ellis, H. (1989). Preface. In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of Research on Face Processing. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam.
  252. Young, A.W., Hay, D.C. & McWeeney, K.H. (1985). Right celebral hemisphere superiority for constructing facial representations. Neuropsychologia, 23, 195- 202. Young, A.W., McWeeney, K.H., Hay, D.C. & Ellis, H.D. (1985). Access to identity-specific semantic codes from familiar faces. Quarterly Journal of ExperimentaIPsychology,38A.
  253. AI.Examples of items included in Part I of the AH5 Test of High Grade Intelligence (Heim, 1968).
  254. Which one of the five words on the right bears a similar relation to each of the two words on the left'? Just. Blonde
  255. Light.
  256. Backwards is to reversed as upside-down is to ........... .
  257. Write down the number of the word that would come six.th if the following words were arranged in order. with the longest period on the ex.treme left:

Related papers

The accuracy of memory for faces of personally known individuals
Serge Brédart

Perception, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Facial Memory: The Role of the Pre-Existing Knowledge in Face Processing and Recognition
Alex Estudillo

Faces are visual stimuli full of information. Depending upon the familiarity with a face, the information we can extract will differ, so the more familiarity with a face, the more information that can be extracted from it. The present article reviews the role that pre-existing knowledge of a face has in its processing. Here, we focus on behavioral, electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. The influence of familiarity in early stages (attention, perception and working memory) and in later stages (pre-semantic and semantic knowledge) of the processing are discussed. The differences in brain anatomy for familiar and unfamiliar faces are also considered. As it will be shown, experimental data seems to support that familiarity can affect even the earliest stages of the recognition.

View PDFchevron_right
Individual differences in face perception and person recognition
Karen Lander

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

View PDFchevron_right
Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces—One element of social cognition
Olga Kunina-Habenicht, Grit Herzmann

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010

Recognizing faces swiftly and accurately is of paramount importance to humans as a social species. Individual differences in the ability to perform these tasks may therefore reflect important aspects of social or emotional intelligence. Although functional models of face cognition based on group and single case studies postulate multiple component processes, little is known about the ability structure underlying individual differences in face cognition. In 2 large individual differences experiments (N ϭ 151 and N ϭ 209), a broad variety of face-cognition tasks were tested and the component abilities of face cognition-face perception, face memory, and the speed of face cognition-were identified and then replicated. Experiment 2 also showed that the 3 face-cognition abilities are clearly distinct from immediate and delayed memory, mental speed, general cognitive ability, and object cognition. These results converge with functional and neuroanatomical models of face cognition by demonstrating the difference between face perception and face memory. The results also underline the importance of distinguishing between speed and accuracy of face cognition. Together our results provide a first step toward establishing face-processing abilities as an independent ability reflecting elements of social intelligence.

View PDFchevron_right
Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations
Gary Wells

Memory & Cognition, 1984

The reliable finding that trait judgments of faces yield better recognition memory than do feature judgments of faces is conceptualized as an encoding-specificity effect. Specifically, both trait-judgment encodings of faces and face-recognition tests are argued to be holistic, involving topographical information with between-feature processing. Consistent with the concept that encoding and retrieval operations interact to produce retrieval success, it was expected that a memory-for-face test using the Identi-kit (which requires reconstructions of the face at a feature level of analysis) would show trait-encoding tasks to be inferior to feature-encoding tasks. Eighty subjects were assigned randomly to judge a face on 10 trait dimensions (e.g., honesty-dishonesty) or on 10 feature dimensions (e.g., narrow nose-wide nose) and subsequently attempted to recognize the target among five distractors or to reconstruct the face from an Identi-kit. The significant interaction between encoding and retrieval operations indicated that the face was best identified under trait-encoding conditions but best reconstructed under featureencoding conditions. The match between trait encoding and recognition in yielding high memory performance suggests strongly that trait judgments foster holistic processing of faces (i.e., interfeature topographical information is part of the context) and that the recognition of faces also is holistic. Finally, the utility of the feature-vs, holistic-processing distinction is questioned, and an alternative is proposed.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Medicine
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved