The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Psychology AN EXAMINATION OF HOLISM IN THE VISUAL PROCESSING OF FACES USING THE CROWDING EFFECT AND GENERAL RECOGNITION THEORY A Thesis in Psychology by Brianna Sullivan © 2008 Brianna Sullivan Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2008 The thesis of Brianna Sullivan was reviewed and approved* by the following: Michael J. Wenger Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology Thesis Advisor Cathleen M. Moore Professor of Cognitive Psychology Reginald B. Adams, Jr. Assistant Professor of Social Psychology Melvin M. Mark Professor of Social Psychology Head of the Department of Psychology * Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii ABSTRACT This study examined the extent to which holism in visual perception can be revealed by way of the presence or absence of crowding. Martelli, Majaj, and Pelli (2005) used crowding to propose an operational definition for holism. Specifically, they argued that holistic perception of an object is implicated if that object can be identified when the entire object is presented within an isolation field (defined as an area proportional to one-half eccentricity). Conversely, parts- based processing is implicated if identification is impaired when the entire object is within an isolation field, with an attenuation or elimination of that impairment when each part of the object is isolated by critical spacing. Martelli et al. found evidence of crowding—increases in threshold contrast as a function of eccentricity for faces and words—suggesting that foveally-presented objects are processed holistically, and peripherally-presented objects are processed by parts. This operational definition is considered from the perspective of general recognition theory (GRT, Ashby & Townsend, 1986). GRT provides theoretical characterizations of perceptual and decisional independence and separability, with violations of independence and separability allowing for multiple characterizations of holism. In this study, accuracy of identification responses was used to link Martelli et al.’s operational definition to the definitions of holism provided by GRT. Two sets of face stimuli were presented under conditions modeled on those used by Martelli et al. The faces were used to replicate the patterns documented by Martelli et al.: specifically, evidence for the benefit of a facial context in foveal presentation, and impairment in peripheral presentation—benefit and impairment that were eliminated in both presentations when critical spacing isolated the featural parts of the face stimuli. In addition, the GRT analyses revealed disparities between the current operational and theoretical definitions of holistic processing which suggest that the visual crowding effect cannot serve as a method for defining holism in face processing. These results contribute to a more systematic definition of holism, and an improved understanding of the visual processing of faces. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . .v List of Figures . .vi INTRODUCTION . .1 Holistic Face Processing . 2 Operational Definitions of Holism . .4 Crowding Effect . .9 Martelli, Majaj and Pelli (2005) Experiments . 11 General Recognition Theory . .15 Current Experiments . .21 GENERAL METHODS . 23 Participants. 24 Stimuli . 24 Procedure . 24 RESULTS . 26 Experiment 1 . 26 Evidence of Context Effects and Crowding. 26 Evidence of Holism . 28 Experiment 2 . 32 Evidence of Context Effects and Crowding. 33 Evidence of Holism . 34 DISCUSSION . 36 Limitations . 38 Future Directions . 38 Conclusions . 40 REFERENCES. .41 APPENDIX . .44 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Experiment 1 threshold ratios and upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals. 45 Table 2: Summary Truth table 1 relates the results of the macro-analyses for one of the features (e.g., the nose) to inferences regarding Perceptual Separability (PS) and Decisional Separability (DS). Note. This table replicates details presented in Wenger and Ingvalsen, 2002, Table 4, p.9 . .46 Table 3: Summary Truth table 2 relates the results of the micro-analyses to inferences regarding Perceptual Independence (PI) and Decisional Separability (DS). Note. This table replicates details presented in Wenger and Ingvalsen, 2002, Table 5, p.9 . .47 Table 4: Experiment 1 multidimensional signal detection analyses summary of violations . .48 Table 5: Experiment 1 signal detection macro-analysis marginal estimates for d’ and c . 49 Table 6: Experiment 1 signal detection macro-analysis for marginal response invariance (MRI). .50 Table 7: Experiment 1 signal detection micro-analyses for sampling independence for the foveal presentation of stimuli. 51 Table 8: Experiment 1 signal detection micro-analyses for sampling independence for the peripheral presentation of stimuli. 52 Table 9: Experiment 2 threshold ratios and upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals. 53 Table 10: Experiment 2 multidimensional signal detection analyses summary of violations. 54 Table 11: Experiment 2 signal detection macro-analysis marginal estimates for d’ and c . 55 Table 12: Experiment 2 signal detection macro-analysis for marginal response invariance (MRI). .56 Table 13: Experiment 2 signal detection micro-analyses for sampling independence for the foveal presentation of stimuli. 57 Table 14: Experiment 2 signal detection micro-analyses for sampling independence for the peripheral presentation of stimuli. 58 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Schematic of visual field illustrating changes in critical spacing as a function of eccentricity, at 1.5 and 8 degrees eccentricity . 59 Figure 2: Experiment 1 Nose and Face Stimuli. 60 a. Nose alone (narrow, r) b. Nose alone (wide, w) c. Eyes(r)-Nose(r)-Mouth(w) d. Eyes(r)-Nose(r)-Mouth(r) e. Eyes(r)-Nose(w)-Mouth(w) f. Eyes(w)-Nose(r)-Mouth(w) g. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(w) h. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) i. Eyes(r)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) j. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) Figure 3: Experiment 2 Nose and Face Stimuli . .61 a. Nose alone (narrow, r) b. Nose alone (wide, w) c. Eyes(r)-Nose(r)-Mouth(w) d. Eyes(r)-Nose(r)-Mouth(r) e. Eyes(r)-Nose(w)-Mouth(w) f. Eyes(w)-Nose(r)-Mouth(w) g. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(w) h. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) i. Eyes(r)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) j. Eyes(w)-Nose(w)-Mouth(r) Figure 4: Contour example explaining the GRT representations . 62 a. Theoretical representation of equal-likelihood contours b. Statistical representation of geometrical contours Figure 5: Examples of GRT equal-likelihood contours illustrating violations . 63 a. Violation of Perceptual Independence (PI) b. Violation of Perceptual Separability (PS) c. Violation of Decisional Separability (DS) d. No violations Figure 6: Experiment 1. Contrast threshold ratios. 64 Figure 7: Experiment 1. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 1. .65 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral vi Figure 8: Experiment 1. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 2. .66 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 9: Experiment 1. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 3. .67 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 10: Experiment 1. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 4. .68 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 11: Experiment 1. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 5. .69 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 12: Experiment 2. Contrast threshold ratios. 70 Figure 13: Experiment 2. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 1. .71 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 14: Experiment 2. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 2 . 72 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral vii Figure 15: Experiment 2. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 3. .73 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose peripheral c. Eyes-Mouth foveal d. Eyes-Mouth peripheral e. Nose-Mouth foveal f. Nose-Mouth peripheral Figure 16: Experiment 2. Contours indicating distributions of evidence for Observer 4 . .74 a. Eyes-Nose foveal b. Eyes-Nose.