Master bio

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/334

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

335 Terms

1
New cards

why do we recognise faces?

  • best cognitive skills we have

  • can rapidly detect a face & recognise familiar faces within 100ms

  • allows us to extract relevant info to categorise a person’s facial expression, gender, race & direction of gaze

2
New cards

why is accurate face recognition important

  • for social interactions

  • provides us w/clues about who we are interacting with & motivational/emotional states

3
New cards

behavioural accounts of facial recognition

  • specificity

  • expertise

4
New cards

specificity account (Mckine & kanwisher, 2005)

  • Neurocognitive mechanisms are selectively involved in processing faces

  • specific to facial recognition

5
New cards

expertise account (Diamond & Carey, 1986'; Gauthier & Tarr)

  • Neurocognitive mechanisms involved in face recognition are elicited for all prototype-defined stimuli

  • get better at recognising faces if we’ve seen them before

6
New cards

Face Inversion Effect (FIE)

  • struggle to recognise faces when they are upside down

  • unable to process information

7
New cards

Specificity account of FIE (Yin, 1969) Stimuli

  • p presented w/diff stimuli & asked to remember

    • more mean errors for inverted faces

    • more accurate recognition of upright faces

8
New cards

Specificity account of FIE (Yin, 1969) Findings

  • robust inversion effect for face stimuli than for other stimuli

  • supports specific account

9
New cards

expertise account of FIE (Diamond & Carey, 1986)

  • robust inversion effect for dog images as for faces when P were dog breeders

  • asked to remember what they had seen

    • performance was equal for non-experts

    • more accurate recognition of upright

10
New cards

FIE in chimps (Parr & Heinz)

  1. inversion effect suggests chimps have face configural processing

    • robust inversion effect for faces, not houses (exp1)

  2. chimps have better STM (eidetic) → extracted inner features/spit faces into parts to disrupt configuration

    • significant impairments when 2nd order configurations are disrupted

    • performance was improved for inner features

    • robust FIE

  3. unaltered face, masked eyes, small pixelation & large

    • pixelating affected 1st/2nd order configurations

    • significant difference w/large pixelation

11
New cards

configural information (expertise account)

  • 1st order

  • 2nd order

  • holistic processing

  • featural processing

12
New cards

1st order configural processing

  • average spatial relationship among main features

  • creates a prototype

<ul><li><p>average spatial relationship among main features</p></li><li><p>creates a prototype</p></li></ul><p></p>
13
New cards

2nd order configural processing

  • small variations of average spaces

  • distance of main features

<ul><li><p>small variations of average spaces</p></li><li><p>distance of main features</p></li></ul><p></p>
14
New cards

holistic configural processing

  • processing face as a whole

<ul><li><p>processing face as a whole </p></li></ul><p></p>
15
New cards

Featural configural processing

  • identifying individual features of the face as if they were separate

<ul><li><p>identifying individual features of the face as if they were separate </p></li></ul><p></p>
16
New cards

Thatcher illusion

  • manipulation of face & mouth

    • if inverted don’t notice

    • if upright is distressing

  • used to seeing face upright w/specific configural information → messes w/expertise

  • shows that face processing required configural processing

17
New cards

why does the thatcher illusion support the expertise account

  • we’re experts in upright faces, not inverted ones

  • If we were equally good at both orientations → illusion wouldn’t occur

  • It can be recreated w/other stimuli if p are experts

18
New cards

Thatcher illusion & FIE (Civile, Cook et al, 2020) stimuli

  • stimuli upright normal, inverted normal & thatcherised

19
New cards

Thatcher illusion & FIE (Civile, Cook et al, 2020) process

  • presented w/1 face, asked to remember it & say whether old/new

20
New cards

Thatcher illusion & FIE (Civile, Cook et al, 2020) findings

  • Thatcherized faces make performance so poor FIE was null

    • already performing poor that thatiscation didn’t effect → configural info was already disrupted

21
New cards

Thatcherized chimp study (Weldon et al (2013) Stimuli

  • robust FIE for unaltered faces

22
New cards

Thatcherized chimp study (Weldon et al (2013) process

  • Chimps shown faces (chimp) that were either

    • normal

    • Thatcherized

  • They were tested under upright and inverted conditions.

  • The task measured their recognition performance

23
New cards

Thatcherized chimp study (Weldon et al (2013) findings

  • Chimps were not affected by the Thatcherised illusion

    • don’t rely on same configural processing as humans

24
New cards

fMRI

  • non-invasive

  • detects brain activity by detecting changes in oxygen in blood

  • relies on blood flow & neural activation being coupled

    • if area is activated blood flow increases & neurons start sending more electrical signals

25
New cards

mri

  • involves looking at brain to ensure everything is the right size/place

  • can show any lesions

26
New cards

strengths of fmri

  • readily available to both clinical & academic researchers

  • non-invasive

  • provides high-resolution anatomic scans

27
New cards

Neuroscience explanation of facial recognition

  • Face Fusion Area (FFA)

28
New cards

FFA

  • cortical region in fusiform gyrus

  • activated when p are presented w/face stimulus

29
New cards

FFA Specificity (Kanwisher et al, 1997) stimuli

  • searched for occipitotemporal areas that might be specialised for face perception whilst p viewed faces

  • could anatomically localise candidate face areas

    1. Passive viewing of faces

    2. low-level features presented in scrambled condition

    3. faces vs houses

30
New cards

FFA Specificity (Kanwisher et al, 1997) process

  • Passive viewing of faces

  • low-level features presented in scrambled condition

  • faces vs houses

31
New cards

FFA Specificity (Kanwisher et al, 1997) findings

  • Passive viewing of faces

    • fusiform gyrus was strongly activated consistently

  • low-level features presented in scrambled condition

    • fusiform gyrus was more strongly activated for faces than scrambled

  • faces vs houses

    • more strongly activated for faces

32
New cards

strengths of Kanwisher et al’s study

  • avoided leaving cut/paste marks in scrambled faces

  • supports specific account of facial recognition

33
New cards

FFA expertise (Gauthier et al) process

  • used fmri

  • expertise training w/greebles until fast at categorising

  • confirmed preference for faces

34
New cards

FFA expertise (Gauthier et al) stimuli

  • greebles & faces

35
New cards

FFA expertise (Gauthier et al) findings

  • upright specific activation found for upright faces than greebles

    • prefrence for faces was strongest in right hemisphere

  • expertise training w/upright greebles led to increased activation in FFA

    • started to process greebles holistically

    • led to greebles being affected by inversion effect

      • worse at recognised inverted

36
New cards

expertise training leads to what kind of processing

  • holistic processing which leads to inversion effect

37
New cards

is inversion effect exclusive for faces

  • no

  • Gauthier et al found inversion effect could be produced by training p to be experts at greebles

  • supports the expertise account

38
New cards

Electroencephalogram (EEG)

  • measure electrical activity generated by synchronised activity of neurons

  • voltage fluctuations measured is small but recorded data is digitised & sent to amplifier

39
New cards

strengths of EEG

  • provides excellent time resolution

    • detection of activity within cortical areas at sub seconds

40
New cards

ERPs

  • small voltage generated in brain structures in response to specific stimuli

  • EEG changes that are locked to sensory/cognitive events

  • provides a noninvasive way of studying psychophysical correlated of mental process w/temporal resolution

41
New cards

FIE on N170 → specificity account (Eimer, 2010)

  • decreased peak recorded in posterior temporal regions due to faces

  • FIE increases N170 amplitude & delays peaks → brain is working harder & slower to process inverted faces compared to upright ones

    • inverted disrupts normal processing

42
New cards

FIE on N170 → specificity account (Eimer, 2010) stimuli

  • upright vs inverted

43
New cards

FIE on N170 → specificity account (Eimer, 2010) process

  • EEG measured N170 component during face recognition tasks

44
New cards

FIE on N170 specificity account (Eimer, 2010) findings

  • suggests face processing relies on holistic processing

  • N170 is larger for faces = faces processed uniquely

    • missed because electrodes rarely placed in posterior regions

45
New cards

N170

  • an ERP component appearing 130-210 seconds after processing faces & familiar objects

  • associated w/early face perception

  • typically larger in amplitude & delayed in latency for inverted faces

46
New cards

why does N170/Eimer’s study support specificity account

  • N170 is selective for faces (not other object categories).

  • changes in N170 due to inversion imply that face-specific mechanisms are being disrupted.

  • supports the idea that faces are processed differently

47
New cards

Expertise account of N170 & FIE

  • specific stimuli can alter N170 inversion effect making it similar to effect of faces

  • Rossion et al (2002)

    • Before training N170 was larger for faces

    • after training inversion effect for greebles was comparable to faces → expertise

  • Busey & Vanderkolk

    • fingerprint experts showed a delayed N170 inversion effect for inverted fingerprints

      • resembled FIE without peaks

48
New cards

ERP, N170 & checkerboards (Civile, Zhao et al, 2014) investigated

  • ERPs to a recognition task w/checkerboards

49
New cards

ERP, N170 & checkerboards (Civile, Zhao et al, 2014) process

  • P were trained w/checkerboards & measured using EEG

50
New cards

ERP, N170 & checkerboards (Civile, Zhao et al, 2014) findings

  • performance for upright familiar was better than upright novel

    • N170 had a robust effect for familiar inverted

    • significant delay N170 for familiar inverted

      • mirroring FIE

  • supports expertise account as experience w/checkerboards led to holistic processing

51
New cards

Brief history of brain stimulation

  • electric fish used for treatment of headaches (43 AD)

  • Galen attempted to alleviate pain using eel but found it needed to be alive to producean electrical current

  • Torpedo fish used to alleviate headaches/joint pain in middle ages

  • First electrical battery led to direct stimulation (19th)

  • Aldini (19th) completed first study of tDCS to improve mood

52
New cards

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

  • target channel electrode & reference channel electrode place on scalp

  • delivers continuous low electrocurrent stimulation (1-2ma)

  • Anodol stimulation induces depolarization of resting membrane potential

  • increased neural excitability allows for spontatious cell firing

  • stimulation for 9-13 minutes can last hr after

53
New cards

anodal

  • where you want to stimulate

54
New cards

cathode

  • reference area

  • if you wanted cathode stimulation you swap

    depends where you put sponge

55
New cards

tDCS & inversion effect (Civile et al, 2021) Process

  • anode over stimulation area 1.5 mA for 10m

  • cathode on forehead 1.5 mA for 30s

  • face matching task & categorisation task (same or diff from target)

56
New cards

tDCS & inversion effect (Civile et al, 2021) findings

  • cathode/sham produced FIE → better recognition of upright faces than inverted

  • Anodal stimulation → reduced/eliminated FIE

    • P were worse at recognising upright faces

    • 10m of stimulation made P reduces ability of recognising faces

  • suggests a neural basis for the expertise account of FIE

57
New cards

Neurostimulation

  • new line of research based on using a tDCS procedure

  • provided evidence that inversion effect for checkboards & faces at lease some of the same causal mechanisms

58
New cards

Inversion effect between familiarised checkboards & faces (Civile, Quagia et al, 2021) process

  • compare inversion effect between familiarised checkerboards & faces

    • Face Matching → tDCS slightly reduced inversion effect

    • Checkerboard Matching → tDCS reduced the inversion effect

59
New cards

Inversion effect between familiarised checkboards & faces (Civile, Quagia et al, 2021) findings

  • provide evidence for 2 factors contributing to inversion effect

    1. Expertise (modifiable by tDCS)

    2. Face-specific mechanisms (less influenced by tDCS).

60
New cards

what is meant by expertise mechanisms contributing the inversion effect

  • if familiar w/something = process holistically

    • whole rather than parts

  • this is disrupted by when item is inverted

  • tDCS can disrupt this if placed on posterior parietal cortex

61
New cards

what is meant by face-specific mechanism contributing the inversion effect

  • Suggests that faces are unique & processed by specialised neural systems (e.g., fusiform face area).

  • mechanism may be less influenced by tDCS

    • inversion effects for faces remain stronger or more resilient even after stimulation

62
New cards

Other Race effect (ORE)

  • refers to the impaired ability to recognise faces from other racial groups

  • 1st demonstrated by Mallpass & Kravists & widely replicated w/different racial groups

  • higher accuracy in recognising own race faces

63
New cards

real life example of ORE

  • EWT failures → false convictions due to misidentification

  • ORE implicated in failures of police matching

64
New cards

who are perpetrators of ORE

  • individuals who fail to recognise/differentiate other race individuals

65
New cards

ORE study (Michel et al, 2006) stimuli

  • unfamiliar caucasian & Chinese faces featuring neural expressions & cropped to remove external features

66
New cards

ORE study (Michel et al, 2006) process

  • P shown 20 faces from each race & asked to memorise

67
New cards

ORE study (Michel et al, 2006) findings

  • Causaions/asians showed better performance for own race

  • expertise on those they see most often

68
New cards

How might motivation effect ORE (Berger)

  • prejudiced racial attitudes reduce motivation to approach/differentiate members of other races

    • weaker memory for other races

  • early studies used racially homogenous caucasian students w/little exposure to diff

69
New cards

ORE reflecting different processing

  • ORE reflect categorical processing of outgroups’ faces vs feature-based processing of ingroup

  • own race faces = search for individual features

  • other race = rely on prototypical features resulting in poorer discrimination

70
New cards

face perception is influenced by? (younger et al, 2012)

  • by social categorisation

    • based on race, sex & age

  • different facial features are used depending on whether face elongs to ingroup or outgroup

71
New cards

outgroup facial processing

  • processed featurally

72
New cards

ingroup facial processing

  • processed holistically

73
New cards

perceptual expertise argument for ORE

  • lack of contact/visual experience w/other race faces

  • results in difficulty in processing other races faces confirgual

74
New cards

size/impact of ORE depends on

  • amount of interacial ex

75
New cards

FFA & ORE (Golby et al) stimuli

  • 42 AA, 42 EA, 42 radios

76
New cards

FFA & ORE (Golby et al) process

  • fMRI

  • shown half previously seen & asked to indicate whether new/old

77
New cards

FFA & ORE (Golby et al) findings

  • better recognition for own race faces → robust ORE

  • greater FFA activation for same faces in 84%

    • perceptual expertise due to exposure to same faces

    • FFA activation for same-race faces driven by familiarity/expertise w/same race

78
New cards

N170 & ORE (Vizioli et al, 2010) stimuli

  • 15 caucasians, 15 asians

  • no prior experience w/either

79
New cards

N170 & ORE (Vizioli et al, 2010) process

  • face presented for 200ms

  • showed inverted SR or OR

  • performed orthogonal task to avoid race based attentional bias

80
New cards

N170 & ORE (Vizioli et al, 2010) findings

  • n170 amplitude largest for inverted SR faces across all groups

    • greater configural processing disruption when same face are inverted

  • n170 latency no difference between races

    • speed of early visual face processing wasn't dependent

  • behavioural = memorising faces

    • SR faces were recognised more accurately than OR

      • ORE

    • FIE had greater negative effects on SR recognition

      • supports expertise account

      • familiarity = holistic

81
New cards

tDCS to eliminate ORE (Civile & Mclaren) aim

  • examined if tDCS disrupted perceptual expertise for faces & decreased ORE → driven by perceptual expertise

82
New cards

tDCS to eliminate ORE (Civile & Mclaren) stimuli

  • 96 western Caucasians (1/2 sham/anodal)

83
New cards

tDCS to eliminate ORE (Civile & Mclaren) process

  • anodal stimulation over fusiform gyrus

  • old/new face recognition w/study phase & FIE

84
New cards

tDCS to eliminate ORE (Civile & Mclaren) findings

  • tDCS reduced ORE → P became = poor at recognising SR & OR faces

    • perceptual expertise

  • tDCS interfered w/holisitic/congiural face processing

85
New cards

objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997)

  • sexual objectification as appraisal of women in terms of their bodies as objects for utilisation

  • leading to negative psychological consequences

    • e.g shame, self-objectification

86
New cards

objectification of women (Nussbaum, 1999)

  • has negative effects for the objectified person

    • e.g restrained eating

  • can be a precursor for dehumanisation

87
New cards

objectification occurs when… (Bartkly, 1990)

  • woman’s sexual parts functions are separated from her person

  • reduced to mere instruments

  • regarded as if they were capable of representing her

88
New cards

Heflick & Goldenberg (2009)

  • male & female p focus on the appearance of famous woman

  • tended to dehumanise her & perceive her as less than competent

  • when asked to focus on her as a woman → described her w/lack of warmth & human traits

89
New cards

Objectifying gaze

  • subtle everyday objectification

  • occurs when man visually inspects a woman

    • particular attention to their body

  • can impair women’s cognitive abilities

90
New cards

sexual objectification experiences promote…

  • self-objectification & internalisation of a 3rd person’s perspective of their bodies

  • women may regard their looks as more important than other aspects e.g health

91
New cards

body surveillance (fredrick & roberts, 1997)

  • habitual monitoring of the body’s outward appearance

  • objectifying gaze causes increased body surveillance

92
New cards

body shame (fredrick & roberts, 1997)

  • emotional response that follows from measuring oneself against an internalised/cultural standard

    • perceiving oneself to be failing against standards

  • objectifying gaze increases body shame

    • gaze focuses attention on body producing shameful response

93
New cards

body dissatisfaction (Smolak & Levine, 2001)

  • awareness of potential discrepancies between women’s actual bodies & cultural appearance ideals

  • higher body dissatisfaction when women interpret weight-related criticisms

  • interpret weight related compliments more positively

94
New cards

when do women experience the most body dissatisfaction? (Gervais et al, 2011)

  • when they receive a compliment

95
New cards

the results of objectifying gaze (Gervais et al, 2011) aimed

  • examined effect on undergrad women & men’s cognitive performance & body image outcomes (form)

    • body surveillance, body shame & body dissatisfaction

96
New cards

results of objectifying gaze (Gervais et al, 2011) process

  • heterosexuals paired w/confederates of opposite sex (‘worker’)

  • had to solve math problems under roles

    1. confederates provided objectifying looks (chest) & written feedback focusing on looks

    2. confederate maintained neutral eye contact & feedback

97
New cards

results of objectifying gaze (Gervais et al, 2011) findings

  • women performed worse than men overall in maths

    • reduction of skills due to objectification

      • control women performed similarly to men

  • main effect of gender was significant

    • women reported more body surveillance, felt more body shame & experienced more body dissatisfaction

98
New cards

objectification & cognitive processes (Gervais et al, 2012)

  • objectification similar to the processing of an object

  • found women’s body parts were recognised better in isolation

  • men’s body parts were recognised better as a full body (integrated as a whole)

  • suggests women’s bodies are processed in terms of individual features like object recognition

99
New cards

Bernard et al (2012) → perceptual processing of sexualised images using body inversion effect stimuli

  • 48 sexualised photos of men/women in swimsuits, half presented upright, half inverted

100
New cards

Bernard et al (2012) → perceptual processing of sexualised images using body inversion effect process

  • identified whether they had previously seen sexualised photos of men/women in swimsuits