2nd Koltanowski Conference on Chess and Education

On Holistic Processing with Faces and Chess James C. Bartlett Amy Boggan Daniel Krawczyk University of Texas at Dallas An old idea:

• Face is not based only on features . . . Because the whole is different than the sum of its parts

• New research: Faces are “special” in involving holistic processing more than other objects (e.g., Robbins & McKone, 2003) But what is “holistic processing” of faces? – Supports perception of spatial relations (Sergent, 1984) – Involves a “strong integration of parts into wholes” (McKone & Peh, 2006) – Causes failures of selective attention to parts (Bruce & Humphreys, 1994)

– What are findings underlying these conclusions? Finding # 1:

Facial inversion disrupts perception of spatial relations – Early research on face memory (Yin, 1969) – Identifying faces in ambiguous forms Finding # 1:

Facial inversion disrupts perception of spatial relations – Early research on face memory (Yin, 1969) – Identifying faces in ambiguous forms

• The Margaret Thatcher illusion and related effects Has one of these faces been alterred?

Thompson, 1980 Is it rather more obvious now? Bartlett & Searcy (1993)

• The effect generalizes to spatial distorted faces – with features moved rather than inverted

Barton, Zhao & Keenan (2003) Barton, Zhao & Keenan (2003) And misorientation effects are nonlinear

– Murray, Yong & Rhodes (2000): Does misorientation make any facial distortion hard to detect?

• No . . . Searcy & Bartlett (1996)

Barton, Zhao & Keenan (2003)

• An extension contrasting spatial and feature-color information

• Conclusion: Inversion impairs processing of spatial relations more than features And all spatial changes are not alike . . . Sekunova & Barton (2008) It’s hard to see the difference with Eye+Brow vertical & Mouth/Vertical Their results: The relevance-interaction account In words: • Upright presentation allows processing spatial relations across the whole face • This is important: – With long-range spatial relations (eyes/mouth) – In facial regions that get less attention (e.g., the nose/mouth region) A recent study on the Thatcher illusion

Adachi, Chou & Hampton, Current Biology, 2009 Finding # 2:

Strong integration of parts into wholes: The part-whole effect: – Tanaka & Farah (1993) – Having studied a feature in the context of a face ...... it is better recognized in that same context as compared to: • no context • an altered context (Tanaka & Sengco, 1997) Consider Larry’s face: Now, which is Larry’s nose? Which is Larry?

People did better in This “whole-face” condition . . . But not when the faces were scrambled . . . Or shown upside- down Conclusion:

• People do not perceive parts independently of other parts – When you change a part, you change perception of the whole . . . Finding # 3:

The composite effect: Failures to selectively attend to parts of faces – Young, Hellawell & Hay (1987) In a face configuration, it’s hard to attend to a part

The Composite Effect Young, Hellawell & Hay, 1987 The congruent/incongruent design:

Same Trials Different Trials

Study Face Test Face Study Face Test Face

Congruent A A A C (consistent) B B B D

A A Incongruent A C (inconsistent) B D B B Higher discrimination for congruent trials . . . but only with good alignment Conclusion: Faces are processed as wholes • Inversion impairs perception of spatial relations in faces • Facial parts are tightly integrated • It is hard to attend to just one part of a face Question:

• Is such “holistic” processing restricted to faces ??? • Or can it be learned through training and practice???

• The intriguing case of chess Chess at UT Dallas Amy Boggan’s experiment:

“[. . .] recent research has found that true experts have something at least as valuable as a mastery of the rules: gut instinct, an instantaneous grasp of the type of problem they’re up against. Like the ballplayer who can ‘read’ pitches early, or the chess master who ‘sees’ the best move, they’ve developed a great eye.

Now, a small group of cognitive scientists is arguing that schools and students could take far more advantage of this same bottom-up ability, called perceptual learning. The brain is a pattern-recognition machine, after all, and when focused properly, it can quickly deepen a person’s grasp of a principle, new studies suggest.” Chunking and chess expertise

Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet et al., 2001 “the integration of the [chess] position… consists essentially of taking stock of the spatial, functional, and dynamic relations among the perceived parts—so that they can be combined into one whole”

–de Groot The expertise hypothesis:

Mechanisms for face processing are not only engaged by faces, but are also applied in expert within-class discrimination of non-faces.

Diamond & Carey, 1986; Gauthier & Tarr, 1997 typical between-group discriminations within-group discriminations made by experts Practice and Experience is Key

Campitelli & Gobet, 2008 Why Chess? Quantifiable expertise

Chess players’ relative expertise can be measured quantitatively through a recognized rating system (Elo, 1986)

Chess masters have demonstrated a remarkably better memory for chess displays than novices (Chase & Simon, 1973; Goldin, 1979)

The average chess master has practiced and/or studied chess over 10,000 hours (Gobet & Campitelli, 2007) and has a rating three standard deviations above an average tournament player. Why Chess? Chess vs. Faces • both face and chess game processing require both part-based and configural processing • while face processing skill has some genetic links, no such heritability of chess skill has been identified • chess experience may better compare to (relative to other domains) the amount of expertise many people have with faces

• true chess novices are readily available

• unlike faces, chess games have no constant configuration or biological characteristics

Boggan & Huang, 2011

The Gauthier Interference Paradigm

Gauthier, Curran, Curby. & Collins, 2003 The Composite Effect Effects of Congruency chess condions

Different* Different* Same Same

Different Same Same Different

*from previous (unseen) game face condions

Same* Same* Different Different

Same Different Different Same

*as previous (unseen) face The experiment Interleaved two‐back task Is the boom half the same or different from the previously‐viewed, same type item? D D S S S S D D D S S D S D D S

Boggan, Bartlett, & Krawczyk (2011)

Congruency for faces and chess, by group

Boggan, Bartlett, & Krawczyk (2011) Congruency effect for faces and chess, by group. Chess experts showed equivalent congruency effects for faces and chess, in contrast to recreational players and novices. Novices showed stronger congruency for faces than experts or players (left). The difference in congruency for faces and chess was inversely related to chess expertise (right). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (* indicates p < .05 by t-test).

Boggan, Bartlett, & Krawczyk (2011) Perceptual tuning – is there a critical period? Face Congruency by Expert Starting Age (rank)

Boggan, Bartlett, & Krawczyk (2011) Future research

Acknowledgments

Dr. Bartlett & Dr. Krawczyk Chess Program Director Jim Stallings

The UTD Chess Program The Volunteers The Brain and Chess Perception

Daniel C. Krawczyk

Center for BrainHealth® School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences The University of Texas at Dallas & Department of Psychiatry UT Southwestern Medical Center Overview:

• Differences in cognition observed in chess experts

• Differences observed in the brains of experts

• Comparing chess to other visual displays in chess experts and novices

• Implications for chess expertise in other domains The Nature of Expertise

• Years of experience are key – Why?

• Is expertise specific to a particular domain?

62 Reasoning in Chess

• Two methods:

1. Algorithm Method: analyze all possible moves

2. Heuristic method: efficiently analyze best case scenarios and minimize time spent on probable dead end scenarios

63 Chess Solutions • Who wins?

The Heuristic solution is usually much more effective than the Algorithm approach…

Deep Blue IBM versus chess grand-masters

It took many years before computers could win (success came for Deep Blue in 1996)

64 Chase & Simon’s studies Memory test for chess board types: 1. “in game” chess boards 2. scrambled chess boards

-Experts show large memory advantage, but ONLY for “in game” chess boards

-Led to the Chunking hypothesis for experts

-Chunking may facilitate the heuristic approach 65 Measuring Brain Responses in Humans • Functional MRI (fMRI)

• Uses Standard MRI scanner

• Applies specific settings

• Records brain activity on-line

66 Measuring Brain Responses in Humans • Functional MRI

• Take Standard anatomy MRI

• Measure Blood Oxygen

• Overlay onto anatomy Areas for Face Processing

• Fusiform Face Area (FFA) – Kanwisher et al., 1997

• Occipital Face Area (OFA) – Xu, 2005

68 Does the FFA respond to faces or to expertise?

• Evidence from car and bird experts (Gauthier et al., 2000)

69 Do Faces and Chess Perception Overlap in the brain?

70 Face Areas do not Strongly Respond to Chess

71 What Areas Respond to Chess in Experts?

• This region is associated with self-referential processing

72 Other Evidence from Experts

• Propositional versus Imagery Codes

• “it’s more like thinking in words, not actual words, but more like words than images”

– Jonathan Rowson, British Champion, on what it’s like to think about chess

73 General Conclusions

• Chess processing

– Evidence for holistic processing in chess experts

– The “face areas” do not strongly respond to chess configurations in experts

* Chess experts may access other information rather than visual chunks or configurations when processing chess boards Acknowledgements

*Michelle McClelland *Linda Drew *Mike Motes *Jim Stallings *Joel Today *Kevin Murch *Carrie McAdams *Ehsan Shokri

*UT Dallas Chess Program *UT Dallas Catalyst Grant Program

References

Adachi, I., Chou, D.P., & Hampton, R.R. (2009). Thatcher effect in monkeys demonstrates conservation of across primates. Current Biology, 19(15), 1270-1273.

Bartlett, J.C., & Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and Configuration of Faces. Cognitive , 25, 281-316.

Barton, J.J.S., Zhao, J., & Keenan, J.P. (2003). Perception of global facial geometry in the inversion effect and prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 41(12), 1703-1711.

Boggan, A.L., Bartlett, J.C., & Krawczyk, D.C. (2011). Chess masters show a hallmark of face processing with chess. Journal of : General (advance online publication).

Boggan, A.L., & Huang, C.M. (2011). Chess expertise and the fusiform face area: Why it matters. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(47), 16895-16896.

Bruce, V., & Humphreys, G. W. (1994). Recognizing objects and faces. Visual Cognition, 1, 141–180.

Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 446-458.

Carey, Benedict. (2011). Brain calisthenics for abstract ideas. The New York Times, June 6, 2011.

Cheung, O.S., Richler, J.J., Palmeri, T.J., & Gauthier, I. (2008). Revisiting the Role of Spatial Frequencies in the Holistic Processing of Faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1327-1336.

Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. , 4, 55-81. References de Groot, A.D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.

Elo, A.E. (1986). The rating of chessplayers, past and present (2nd ed.). New York: Arco chess.

Gauthier, I., Curran, T., Curby, K.M. & Collins, D. (2003). Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 428-432.

Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J., & Anderson, A. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 191-197.

Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M.J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition. Vision Research, 37(12), 1673-1682.

Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2007). The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. 43(1), 159-172.

Gobet, F., Lane, P.C.R., Croker, S., Cheng, Peter C-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J.M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236-243.

Goldin, S.E. (1979). Recognition memory for chess positions: Some preliminary research. The American Journal of Psychology, 92(1), 19-31.

Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M.M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience 17, 4302-4311. References, continued

Krawczyk, D. C., Boggan, A. L., McClelland, M. M., & Bartlett, J. C. (2011). Brain organization of perception in chess experts. Neuroscience Letters, 499, 64-69.

McKone, E., & Peh, Y.X. (2006). Memory conjunction errors for realistic faces are consistent with configural processing Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 106-111.

Murray, J., Yong, E., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11(6), 492-496.

Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D.M. (2001a). Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Science, 12(1), 48-55.

Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Schultetus, R., & Stampe, D.M. (2001b). Perceptual automaticity in expert chess players: Parallel encoding of chess relations. Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 504-510.

Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2003). Can holistic processing be learned for inverted faces? Cognition, 88, 79-107.

Searcy, J.H., & Bartlett, J.C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial- relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 22(4), 904-915. References, continued

Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.

Sekunova, A., & Barton, J.J.S. (2008). The effects of face inversion on the perception of long-range and local spatial relations in eye and mouth configuration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1129-1135.

Tanaka, J.W., & Farah, M.J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A, 46(2), 225-245.

Tanaka, J.W., & Sengco, J.A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 583-592.

Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483–484.

Xu, Y. (2005). Revisiting the role of the fusiform face area in visual expertise. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1234-1242.

Yin, R.K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.

Young, A.W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D.C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747-759.

Zhu, Q., Song, Y., Hu, S., Li, X., Tian, M., Zhen, Z., Dong, Q., Kanwisher, N., & Liu, J. (2010). Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face perception. Current Biology, 20, 137-142.