1. Face recognition and visual agnosias Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition, including case studies and explanations of prosopagnosia

2. Face recognition
Face recognition is a very important aspect of social functioning. Most faces are broadly similar, in spite of this we are very good at distinguishing between different faces. Even if the face is unfamiliar we make certain judgements e.g. mood, general age and gender. Bruce took photos of a large number of men and women - to avoid obvious cues of gender, men were closely shaved, women had no make- up and they all wore swimming caps to conceal their hair. Participants were 96% accurate.
We are better at recognising faces we are familiar with – Bahrick gave lecturers set of photos and asked them to pick the students they had taught from those they had never taught. Recognition was good immediately after the end of term but dropped significantly after a year and only chance after 8 years. Suggesting exposure to faces needs to be maintained. One reason we are good at recognising familiar faces is that we have the opportunity to view them from different angles and so build up a more complete mental picture.

3. Is face recognition special?
Yes
Infant preferences for faces – Fantz –babies as young as 4 days old showed a preference for a schematic face rather than jumbled up or blocked. If face preference is innate it would make sense as it would be adaptive – a newborn who recognises and responds to its own species will better elicit attachment and caring. But the results from study could be because infants prefer symmetry and interesting pictures. See also studies of people with prosopagnosia (after this). Would be adaptive e.g. recognising an enemy, your own child, decoding facial expressions. MRI scans of brain activity show that the fusiform gyrus became more active when subjects looking at faces than when looking at other objects. Suggesting this area of the brain is specialised for processing faces.

4. Is face recognition special?No
Faces are quite similar so high level cognitive processing is needed to differentiate them. Gauthier – used MRI to record brain activity of people who were shown pictures of birds and cars and were asked to identify type of bird/car. Found fusiform area also active during this task, suggesting area not dedicated to faces. Experts in bird/car recognition used this area to identify different categories, we are all experts at recognising faces. So suggests fusiform area is specialised for the recognition of any object category for which we possess expertise. Other support – we find it harder to recognise faces of people from other races – probably due to our lack of experience/expertise. If fusiform area is specialised for expert processing then people e.g. who are car experts should find it difficult to carry out a face recognition task and a car recognition task at the same time. People who are not car experts should be able to do both at same time as only face recognition task would need fusiform activity. Gaithier found that this was exactly what happened.

6. THEORIES OF FACE RECOGNITION
How do you recognise people?
Do we use feature analysis. Comparing each feature of the face with a stored list of features. Shepherd, Davies and Ellis briefly showed participants unfamiliar faces and later asked them to describe the faces seen. Features most frequently recalled in order were, hair, eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, chin and forehead. Few mentioned shape of face or expression. But there are problems with a simple feature-based theory. Yin – inversion effect, could recognise pictures of objects turned upside down as easily as right way up, but not faces. Suggestion is that upside down impairs holistic processing but not feature analysis, so face must be processed in a holistic way. Bruce and Valentine – scrambled faces of celebrities, scrambled faces harder to identify than normally configured faces – again suggesting we find it easier to process faces holistically – top- down theory.

7. Orientation is important
Young et al. (1987) paired different top and bottom halves of faces.
They found that recognition of top-halves was easier when faces were inverted. Where faces were upright performance was better when the new lower-half was omitted.
The joined-up upright face led to a ‘new’ configuration which interfered with the detection of individual halves.

8. The ‘Thatcher Illusion’
(Thomson, 1980)

9. The ‘Thatcher Illusion’
(Thomson, 1980)

10. Why does the ‘Thatcher illusion’ occur?
Bartlett and Searcy (1993) conducted experiments to measure face ‘grotesqueness’.
Their results supported the “configural processing hypothesis”
i.e. We have a difficulty in understanding the configuration of features when faces are inverted.
We aren’t aware of the odd configuration of elements within the inverted Thatcher image.

11. Does the inversion effect suggest that face recognition is special?
Diamond and Carey (1986) tested recognition for faces and dogs.
They found that dog judges and breeders were relatively impaired for inverted faces compared to ‘normal’ individuals.
This suggests that frequent exposure results in the inversion effect. i.e. Configuration becomes important through practice?

12. Bruce and Young
Bruce and Young’s (1986) model is the most influential theoretical approach to face recognition. The model has eight components: structural encoding, expression analysis, facial speech analysis, directed visual processing, face recognition nodes, person identity nodes, name generation and a cognitive system.

13. The model predicts that:
familiar and unfamiliar faces are processed differently;
facial identity and facial expression are processed separately;
 for a familiar face, familiarity information is accessed before information about identity or name.

14. Capgras Syndrome
Arthur was a young man who sustained a terrible head injury in a car crash.
Soon after he claimed that his mother and father had been replaced by duplicates who looked exactly like his parents.
He also had problems recognising himself in pictures and claimed they were ‘another Arthur’.

15. Face Recognition
Face recognition is a special case of object recognition.
Unlike objects though faces move and make meaningful noises.
We can also watch their lips as they are speaking to help us understand what they are saying.

16. Bruce and Young’s Face Recognition Model
View centred description
Name generation
Person identity nodes (PINS)
Face recognition units (FRU)
Expression-independent descriptions
Structural Encoding
Processing a basic pattern of the face
The image of the face is processed, including the person’s expression and watching the movements of their mouth as they speak (facial speech analysis).
Features of the face that do not change with people’s expressions are processed, e.g. size/shape of nose.

17. Bruce and Young’s Face Recognition Model
Structural Encoding
These store information about the structure of familiar faces. This is where we turn the 2D image we see into a 3D image.
View centred description
Expression-independent descriptions
These store biographical information about people, their favourite food, music films, where you know them from etc.
Face recognition units (FRU)
Person identity nodes (PINS)
Now we can name the person.
Name generation

18. Bruce and Young’s Face Recognition Model
View centred description
Expression analysis
Name generation
Person identity nodes (PINS)
Face recognition units (FRU)
Expression-independent descriptions
Directed visual processing
Facial speech analysis
Cognitive System
Structural Encoding

19. Face Recognition
After structural encoding different types of information from the face are extracted in parallel.
Familiar faces are processed separately from unfamiliar faces.

20. Face Recognition Model
Expression analysis looking at peoples expression to see what emotions they are feeling.
Spot the fake smile

21. Face Recognition Model
Facial speech analysis ‘lip-reading’, watching lip movements to help understand what people are saying.
McGurk Effect

22. Face Recognition Model
Directed visual processing allows visual processing of unfamiliar faces e.g. looking for features such as if they have a moustache.

23. Face Recognition Model
Cognitive system holds additional information that might help us recognise people. It also helps us decide what parts of the face recognition system we need to attend to.

24. Bruce and Young’s Face Recognition Model
View centred description
Expression analysis
Name generation
Person identity nodes (PINS)
Face recognition units (FRU)
Expression-independent descriptions
Directed visual processing
Facial speech analysis
Cognitive System
Structural Encoding

25. Face Recognition
Celebrity blindness article and test (test is about half way down the page)
Thatcher test

26. Research
Malone et al. (1982) provided evidence for a double dissociation between recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Much research supports the assumption that there are separate routes for processing facial identity and expression.
Fox et al. (2011) found patients with damage to the face-recognition network had impaired identity perception but not expression perception. Patients with impaired recognition of facial expression may have other emotional impairments. Different brain regions may be involved in processing facial expressions and identity. Processing facial identity is associated with the fusiform face area, while processing expressions activates the superior temporal sulcus.

28. MRI

29. research
Young et al. (1985) found people decided more quickly on whether a face was familiar than on the identity of the face. Young et al. (1985) found evidence that the name of a person cannot be accessed without also having other information about the person available. However, Brédart et al. (2005) found evidence contrary to the model, which showed that speed of recall for names was faster than that for personal information when the faces were those of personal friends.

30. Evaluation
Bruce and Young’s model is deservedly influential and many of its predictions have received empirical support. However, the model also possesses limitations, mostly because it is oversimplified. Also, the assumption that facial identity and expression involve separate processing routes may be too extreme. The assumption that name processing always occurs after processing of other personal information may also be too rigid.

31. Face recognition and visual agnosias
Face recognition is a specialised form of pattern recognition Face recognition is an important area of research because it has a number of practical applications We are generally better at dealing with familiar faces rather than unfamiliar faces There is some debate as to whether face recognition is a highly specialised mechanism or whether it is simply one type of complex processing Computer models of face recognition can operate either feature by feature or holistically. It is generally agreed that human face recognition is largely a holistic process Research using scrambled and inverted faces suggests that human face recognition depends largely on holistic processing One of the most influential models of face recognition was proposed by Bruce and Young. This model contains a number of independent modules working in parallel. So does this make it an holistic or constructivist/hierarchical theory. The model has been influential but only offers a limited explanation of face recognition Prosopagnosia is a relatively rare disorder in which individuals lose the ability to recognise familiar faces A number of case studies have been reported which provide clues about the face recognition process in normal humans Prosopagnosia research lends support to the Bruce and Young model

32. Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition

33. Discuss Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition.
(4 marks + 8 marks)

34. AO1
Given the marks available it is not necessary for candidates to outline all components of the Bruce & Young model for full marks. More important is that they demonstrate an understanding of general features of the model, and supplement this with reference to subcomponents. For instance, an outline that includes reference to a stage model, and to some stages being sequential and some working in parallel, combined with a brief outline of e.g. expression analysis and face recognition units, would earn 4 marks. A listing of two or more subcomponents without reference to overall features of the model would receive a maximum of 2 marks. Candidates need not refer to the updated version of the model published recently.
Diagrams can be an effective way of presenting the model, but there must be some indication of process as well as key components for marks above Basic, e.g. through use of directional arrows.
Examiners should be sensitive to the time constraints of this question part.

35. AO2/AO3
Commentary/evaluation of the Bruce and Young model should focus on the wealth of research evidence. There are many studies on both neurotypicals and on case studies of brain-damaged patients (e.g. prosopagnosics) that provide both support and some contradictory findings relevant to the model. The key to marks in the higher bands will be the extent to which candidates link findings to specific aspects of the model e.g. whether they provide support for specific modules within the model, such as the distinction between face recognition units and name generation. Alternative interpretations of data would also be an effective source of AO2/3 material. Methodological evaluation of studies is likely to be popular, but may only earn marks if implications for the theory are explicit i.e. commentary on ethical issues is unlikely to be creditworthy, while references to the limitations of case studies may well earn AO2/3 marks.

36. Indicative issues, debates and approaches in the context of the Bruce & Young theory of face recognition include reductionism and holism – the model breaks face recognition down into several subcomponents and strategies, as opposed to approaches that emphasise the holistic aspects of face recognition. Other IDA in this area might include the applications of findings e.g. to interpreting the effects of brain damage.
AO2/3 Mark bands – Best fit
AO2/3 material should first be placed in the appropriate band according to the descriptors. However, not all the criteria need be satisfied for an answer to be placed in a particular band. Weak performance in one area may be compensated for by strong performance in others. In order to access the top band, issues and debates and/or approaches need to be addressed effectively.

37. Visual agnosias
Visual agnosia is the inability to recognise familiar objects presented visually. Most neuropsychologists distinguish between “apperceptive agnosia” and “associative agnosia”.
“Associative agnosia” is when perceptual ability is intact but there is a failure of recognition because of difficulty in accessing the relevant knowledge from memory – a “normal percept stripped of its meaning” (Teuber 1968). An example of this would be having the ability to copy a line drawing of an object accurately, but not being able to name the object. See Rubens and Benson (1971). i.e. they cannot access the information in their long-term memory.
“Apperceptive agnosia” is a perceptual deficit, i.e. a failure of recognition due to impaired visual perception. An example of this would be a failure to distinguish between a square and a circle.

38. How to recognise which one
One way to assess the type of agnosia the patient has is to test the patient’s ability to copy objects that can’t be recognised (Humphreys, 1999). Patients who can copy objects are said to have associative agnosia, and those who can’t have apperceptive agnosia.

39. Apperceptive Agnosia
Patients with apperceptive agnosia do possess some perceptual abilities. For example, they typically have normal visual acuity and can reach for moving targets. However, they have deficient visual processes because they are very poor at recognising or identifying objects.

40. Research evidence
Grossman, Galetta, and D’Esposito (1997) reviewed previous research on apperceptive agnosia. One patient could only describe a circle as “lots of dots”, and another couldn’t discriminate between an “X” and an “O”.
Grossman et al. (1997) studied two patients, SZ, a 54-year-old male accountant, and AP, a 65-year-old female teacher. Both of these patients could recognise regular geometric shapes and colours in spite of their severely impaired ability to recognise common objects. However, they were very poor at recognising more complex shapes or when geometric shapes were presented upside down.

41. Associative Agnosia
Patients with associative agnosia have reasonably good basic perceptual processes but are poor at accessing their stored semantic knowledge about objects because it is hard for them to access in long-term memory.

42. Research
Anaki et al. (2007) described their patient (DBO) who had experienced brain damage to the left occipital lobe of the brain (at the back). He had severe visual agnosia as shown by his ability to name only 1 out of 20 common objects. In spite of his visual agnosia, DBO performed well on various tasks involving aspects of object recognition. The fact that he still possessed several visual perceptual skills indicated that he had associative rather than apperceptive agnosia.

43. Evaluation
Empirical evidence supports variations. The empirical research provides convincing evidence that the precise nature of visual agnosia varies considerably from one patient to another.
Individual differences. The distinction between apperceptive and associative agnosia accounts for some individual differences. However, it is oversimplified to try to categorise into just apperceptive or associative agnosia. For example, it is not easy to categorise integrative agnosics as having either apperceptive or associative agnosia
Lack a clear understanding of the cause. It is generally assumed that the main problem in associative agnosia lies in accessing the stored information about objects that they possess. However, it is hard to obtain clear evidence that that is in fact the main problem.
The distinction lacks relevance to specific deficits. The distinction between apperceptive and associative agnosia is more relevant to general deficits in object recognition than specific deficits. For example, prosopagnosics are generally reasonably good at object recognition for most objects other than faces.

44. Prosopagnosia

45. PROSOPAGNOSIA
This is the inability to recognise faces, even ones that are very familiar such as those of friends and family. Thus, this condition is also know as “face blindness” and is usually caused by brain damage. Most prosopagnosics can recognise objects reasonably well but do have some problems with object recognition.

46. Prosopagnosia is an example of an associative agnosia
Prosopagnosia is an example of an associative agnosia. There are different types and levels of prosopagnosia, and this suggests that face recognition occurs in stages - supporting Bruce and Young's theory. It also suggests that different stages of face recognition happens in different parts of the brain, and it is damage to these specific parts that causes the different types and levels of prosopagnosia. Case studies of prosopagnosia are useful because they help to understand how face recognition occurs. There are 2 different explanations of prosopagnosia -

47. There are 2 different explanations of prosopagnosia -
1. It's a unique face specific problem. - Farah et al - brain scans of people doing number of cognitive tasks - FFA (fusiform gyrus) activates during face recognition but less so during object recognition Barton et al - people with prosopagnosia had damaged FFA - suggests specific processing just for face recognition - supports B+Y. - Farah (again!) - faces are special - case study - LH - recognition test - discriminate between objects but not faces Not just faces! - Gauthier et al - some people with prosopagnosia had problems that extended beyond face recognition - inferior to recognising complex objects rather than faces - expertise - car lovers FFA activated when seen cars, bird watchers birds, suggest FFA activated not just for faces but for things people are interested in.

48. Moscovitch, Winocur, and Behrmann (1997) studied CK, a man with impaired object recognition. He performed as well as controls on face-recognition tasks regardless of whether the face was a photograph, a caricature, or a cartoon provided it was upright and the internal features were in the correct locations.

49. Evidence suggests that the fusiform face area (especially the one in the right hemisphere) is specialised for processing faces. Prosopagnosics typically have damage to this brain region (Farah, Tanaka, & Drain, 1995).
Further support is provided by Downing et al. (2006) who presented participants with faces, scenes, and 18 object categories (e.g. tools, fruits, vegetables). The fusiform face area responded significantly more strongly to faces than to any of the other 19 stimulus categories.
However, Grill-Spector, Sayres, and Ress (2006) suggest the fusiform specialisation may not be so pronounced. In this study observers saw faces and three categories of objects (animals, cars, and abstract sculptures). More elements in the fusiform face area responded to faces than to any of the other types of objects, but the differences were not very large.

50. Gauthier and Tarr (2002) suggest there are two reasons why faces appear special even though they aren’t.
First, we typically recognise faces at the individual level, whereas we often recognise objects at a more general level. Recognising specific examples of a category (i.e. faces) is harder than recognising the general category to which an object belongs.
Second, nearly all of us have considerably more experience (and thus expertise) in recognising faces than in recognising individual members of most other categories.
Thus, Gauthier and Tarr concluded that the fusiform face area is a brain area we use for any objects for which we possess expertise not just for processing faces.

51. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE INTO PROSOPAGNOSIA
Most people do possess much more expertise about faces than almost any other object category as predicted by the expertise theory. We have more experience of identifying individual faces than individual members of most other categories. It thus seems possible that differences between face and object recognition might be attributable to differences in expertise.

52. The greatest limitation is that none of the specific hypotheses of the expertise theory has been supported. The fusiform area is not consistently more active when recognising specific objects in the way that it is when recognising faces. It seems then that the processes involved in face recognition differ substantially from those involved in object recognition.

53. Gestalt!
Gestalt, a German word for form or shape, may refer to: Holism, the idea that natural systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts.