1. Person Perception Whats in a Face? Who or What are You?

2. Lectures 1 & 2: Person Perception Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Social Cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120. Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Are you always on my mind? A review of how face perception and attention interact. Neuropsychologia, 45, 75-92. Tarr M.J., & Cheng, Y.D. (2002). Learning to see faces and objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 23-30. Lecture 1 – Face Perception (Background and Basics) Lecture 2 – Person Categorization

3. Face Perception: Triggering Person Understanding

4. Recognizing Others

5. Development of Face Perception

6. Is Face Processing Innate? Goren, Sarty, & Wu (1975)Goren, Sarty, & Wu (1975) showed that new born infants (with an average age of 9 minutes) track schematic face-like patterns more than control patterns with the same features rearranged - see also Dziurawiec & Ellis (1986) human infants may come equipped with knowledge of faces (i.e., roughly what do faces look like)human infants may come equipped with knowledge of faces (i.e., roughly what do faces look like)

7. Im Looking at You

8. But What About Face Recognition: Are You My Mother?

9. Recognizing Family Members person recognition develops in the first 7 months of life -person recognition develops in the first 7 months of life - Sai & Bushnell (1988) report that 1-month olds can discriminate between the face of their mother and a stranger. Bushnell et al. (1989) - two day olds can perform the above discrimination.Bushnell et al. (1989) - two day olds can perform the above discrimination. hair cues (12-month olds cannot discriminate face of mother and stranger if the hair region is concealed with a bathing cap - Bushnell, 1982).hair cues (12-month olds cannot discriminate face of mother and stranger if the hair region is concealed with a bathing cap - Bushnell, 1982).

10. Face Cues: Extracting Person Knowledge Invariant knowledge – identity, sex, race.Invariant knowledge – identity, sex, race. Variable knowledge - expression, emotional status, direction of attention.Variable knowledge - expression, emotional status, direction of attention. Static vs. Dynamic CuesStatic vs. Dynamic Cues Complex processing conditionsComplex processing conditions

11. Face Processing Models Bruce & Young (1986) ModelBruce & Young (1986) Model basic assumption – information is extracted from faces via two distinct processing routes: (i) identity route (ii) expression/sex/age/gaze route behavioral, patient, imaging evidencebehavioral, patient, imaging evidence

12. Face Processing: Cognitive and Neural Components Bruce & Young (1986) Haxby et al., (2000)

13. Who or What Are You? Extracting Categories and Identities

14. Identifying People what makes a person recognizable?what makes a person recognizable? features vs. configurations (part-based vs. holistic processing (importance of configural information)

15. A Face of Two Halves Young et al (1987) made new composite faces from the top halves and bottom halves different famous faces. When the two halves of the composite were closely aligned, to form a new face, subjects found it very difficult to name the top halves. When the two halves were misaligned, subjects were much quicker to name the top halvesYoung et al (1987) made new composite faces from the top halves and bottom halves different famous faces. When the two halves of the composite were closely aligned, to form a new face, subjects found it very difficult to name the top halves. When the two halves were misaligned, subjects were much quicker to name the top halves

16. Who is It?

17. Disrupting Configural Processing Face identification relies on configural information. Recognition is impaired when faces are inverted (i.e., featural processing dominates - Young et al., 1988)Face identification relies on configural information. Recognition is impaired when faces are inverted (i.e., featural processing dominates - Young et al., 1988)

18. A Blast From the Past

19. Is Anybody Safe?

20. Expertise and Configural Processing Diamond and Carey (1986) showed that recognition of individual members of a breed of dogs by expert breeders was as disrupted by inversion as was face recognition (thus, dog breeders relied on configural processing to identify individual dogs)Diamond and Carey (1986) showed that recognition of individual members of a breed of dogs by expert breeders was as disrupted by inversion as was face recognition (thus, dog breeders relied on configural processing to identify individual dogs)

21. Importance of Facial Configuration the importance of the overall configuration of the face can help us understand why face recognition can be remarkably robust despite a variety of natural (change in expression, orientation etc) as well as unnatural (cartoons) transformations in faces.the importance of the overall configuration of the face can help us understand why face recognition can be remarkably robust despite a variety of natural (change in expression, orientation etc) as well as unnatural (cartoons) transformations in faces.

22. Recognizing Caricatures caricatures can be more recognizable than line drawings of the same faces (Rhodes et al., 1987). Caricatures are effective because they exaggerate the relationship between the component facial featurescaricatures can be more recognizable than line drawings of the same faces (Rhodes et al., 1987). Caricatures are effective because they exaggerate the relationship between the component facial features

23. Are Faces Special: Is Britney Spears Like a Teapot?

24. Critical Issues Is there anything special about the stimulus category faces or are they just like any other class of objects?Is there anything special about the stimulus category faces or are they just like any other class of objects? Hay and Young (1982)Hay and Young (1982) uniqueness - are the perceptual and cognitive processes used for recognizing faces different in nature from those used to process other classes of information? specificity - are the processes involved in face recognition, irrespective of their nature, organized into a separate system that deals only with faces?

25. Evidence for Cognitive Distinctiveness complexity - face recognition among our greatest accomplishments (we learn 1000s of faces)complexity - face recognition among our greatest accomplishments (we learn 1000s of faces) own-race bias (Bothwell et al., 1989)own-race bias (Bothwell et al., 1989) recognition for Black/White faces among Black/White participants own-race bias (configural vs. featural processing) evolution of a special face processing system

26. Configural Information faces are special because of their reliance on configural informationfaces are special because of their reliance on configural information inverted faces and other-race faces disrupt configural processing but remember the dog experts!

27. Britney and the Teapot: The Neural Correlates of Face Processing

28. Evidence Relating to Neural Distinctiveness Single-Cell RecordingSingle-Cell Recording single neurons in the superior temporal sulcus (STS) that are selectively responsive to faces. Gross (1992) showed that the cells that are sensitive to face stimuli do not respond to other complexGross (1992) showed that the cells that are sensitive to face stimuli do not respond to other complex visual patterns (e.g., hands). Perrett et al. (1988) have demonstrated that certain cells in STS are tuned to the face of a particular known individual.Perrett et al. (1988) have demonstrated that certain cells in STS are tuned to the face of a particular known individual.

29. Recording in STS

30. Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness lateralizationlateralization - patients with unilateral lesions - normal participants - visual half-field procedures - right hemisphere is dominant for face perception (e.g., prosopagnosia)

31. Still Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness aetology & anatomyaetology & anatomy face processing disorders emerge in a wide range of patient populations - dementia (Hodges et al., 1993) - closed head injury (De Haan & Campbell, 1992) - autistic patients (Teunisse & De Gelder, 1994)

32. Yet Further Evidence for Neural Distinctiveness functional imagingfunctional imaging recent PET/fMRI investigations have identified a number of areas involved in the processing of familiar faces in the posterior, occipito-temporal areas of the brain, the fusiform gyrus - especially in the right hemisphere. fusiform face area (FFA)fusiform face area (FFA) responds selectively to faces specific face processing system

33. Fusiform Face Area (FFA) functional brain imaging investigations of the normal human brain show that a region in the fusiform gyrus is not only activated when subjects view faces, but is activated twice as strongly for faces as for a wide range of non-face stimuli (Kanwisher et al., 1997)functional brain imaging investigations of the normal human brain show that a region in the fusiform gyrus is not only activated when subjects view faces, but is activated twice as strongly for faces as for a wide range of non-face stimuli (Kanwisher et al., 1997)

34. Is the Fusiform Gyrus a Face-Specific Region? domain generalitydomain generality - discriminating between perceptually similar objects - are we simply experts at faces? - might the putative face-specific mechanisms be specialized for making any discriminations for which we have gained expertise (remember the dog breeders and the effects of inversion)?

35. Enter the Greebles

36. Greebles in the Brain

37. Tapping Expertise: Gauthier et al. (2000)

38. Activating Expertise When bird experts and car experts were scanned while viewing birds, cars, faces, and objects, the activity in the face- selective region of the of fusiform gyrus is weakest during the viewing of assorted objects, next strongest for the non-expert category, stronger yet for the expert category, and strongest for faces (Gauthier et al., 2000)When bird experts and car experts were scanned while viewing birds, cars, faces, and objects, the activity in the face- selective region of the of fusiform gyrus is weakest during the viewing of assorted objects, next strongest for the non-expert category, stronger yet for the expert category, and strongest for faces (Gauthier et al., 2000)

39. Summary Things Worth Knowing 1.Components of Face Processing (i.e., featural vs. configural information) 2.Are Faces Special? Next Week 1. Person Categorization

40. Lecture 2: Person Categorization (Who or What are You?)

41. Two Routes to Person Understanding person categorization categorical thinking generic knowledge (stereotypes) fast, efficient, thoughtless person individuation unique persons idiosyncratic attributes slow, effortful, thoughtful individuationcategorization

42. Allports Assumption: The Dominance of Categorical Thinking we like to solve problems easily. We can do so best if we can fit them rapidly into a satisfactory category and use this category as a means of prejudging the solution…So long as we can get away with course overgeneralizations we tend to do so. Why? Well, it takes less effort, and effort, except in the area of our most intense interests, is disagreeable. (1954, pp. 20-21)

43. Two Views of Jim individuated Jim categorical Jim

44. Individuated Jim

45. Categorical Jim

46. Opening the Social-Cognitive Toolbox: The Power of Categorical Thinking reported effects in the literature memories impressions actions attentional preservation but somethings missing people & perception target registration

47. Origins of Categorical Thinking: Relocating the Person in Person Perception cognitive economy primary cause or useful consequence social-cognitive processing stream exploiting the products of perceptual operations ease of knowledge extraction categorical vs. identity-based

48. Schematic Model of Person Construal categorization identification person-based processing category-based processing memories impressions actions ????

49. Extracting Categorical Knowledge From a Face: Is it Easy? what or who do you see? category vs. identity sources of facial information featural vs. configural sub-optimal conditions orientation degradation presentation

50. Troublesome Conditions

51. Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal: Effects of Inversion disrupting person construal sex vs. identity costs of facial inversion configural to featural shift speed of construal sex vs. familiarity

52. Speed of Construal (facial inversion) Cloutier, Mason & Macrae (2005)

53. Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal: Effects of Blurring disrupting person construal sex vs. identity costs of blurring (spatial filtering) speed of construal sex vs. familiarity

54. Speed of Construal (blur) Cloutier, Mason & Macrae (2005)

55. Efficiency of Sex/Identity Construal: Speed of Presentation disrupting person construal sex vs. identity costs of rapid presentation speed of construal sex vs. familiarity

56. Speed of Construal (presentation duration) Cloutier, Mason & Macrae (2005)

57. Whats That?

58. Person Perception: Sex vs. Identity -Viewpoint Invariant? identity vs. sex familiar or unfamiliar? male of female? rotation costs viewpoint dependence 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees speed of classification

59. Speed of Classification Cloutier & Macrae (2007)

60. Person Categorization: Viewpoint Invariant? featural cues hairstyle rotation costs viewpoint dependence 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees stimulus normalization hair vs. no hair speed of sex categorization

61. Speed of Sex Categorization Cloutier & Macrae (2007)

62. Racial Categorization: More Disappearing Cues skin tone (Levin, 2000) hairstyle remove critical cues featural to configural shift costs of facial rotation

63. Hue are You?

64. Speed of Race Categorization Cloutier & Macrae (2007)

65. Is it All in the Hair? triggering cues intact face vs. hair social-cognitive products categories stereotypes priming effects

66. Hair and Sex Priming Prime Target mismatchingmatching mismatching male or female? Angela PeterBallet Jeep

67. Category Priming RT(ms) Macrae & Martin (2008)

68. Stereotype Priming RT(ms) Macrae & Martin (2008)

69. Changing Sex

70. Errors of Construal: Dude Looks Like a Lady! triggering cues power of hair stimulus appraisal feature-based processing M100 (Liu et al., 2002) presentation duration 25 ms vs. 200 ms

71. Errors of Construal Macrae & Martin (2008)

72. Errors of Construal Macrae & Martin (2008)

73. The Paradox of Person Construal: Extracting Identities what do you see? man? rock star? Rod Stewart? habitual dater of blondes? paradox sex vs. identity spontaneous construal familiar objects specificity entry level (Tanaka, 2001)

74. What Do You See?

75. Spontaneous Construal Prop.

76. Familiarity and Sex Priming Prime (150 ms) Target mismatchingmatching mismatching male or female?

77. Sex Priming RT (ms) Quinn, Mason & Macrae (2009)

78. Familiarity and Sex Priming II: Speed of Extraction Prime Target mismatchingmatching mismatching 100 or 150 ms male or female?

79. Sex Priming (150 ms) RT (ms) Quinn, Mason & Macrae (2009)

80. Sex Priming (100 ms) RT (ms) Quinn, Mason & Macrae (2009)

81. Extracting Identities: Temporal Parameters theres something about Carey! when is Mariah a woman? (~100ms) when is Mariah, Mariah? (~150ms) time course of identity-based processing sex then identity? does Mariah override woman?

82. Identity-Based Priming: Speed of Extraction Prime Target mismatchingmatching mismatching 100 or 150 ms familiar or unfamiliar?

83. Identity-Based Priming RT (ms) Quinn, Mason & Macrae (2009)

84. Summary Things Worth Knowing 1.Efficiency of Person Categorization 2.Importance of Featural Cues Next Week 1. Stereotyping