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 perception 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