scholarly journals Eye movement strategies adapted to individual differences in the loci of performance-maximizing fixations during face recognition

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 543-543
Author(s):  
M. F. Peterson ◽  
M. P. Eckstein
2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Bobak ◽  
Benjamin A. Parris ◽  
Nicola J. Gregory ◽  
Rachel J. Bennetts ◽  
Sarah Bate

2021 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 59-70
Author(s):  
Puneeth N. Chakravarthula ◽  
Yuliy Tsank ◽  
Miguel P. Eckstein

1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Wyrick ◽  
Vincent J. Tempone ◽  
Jack Capehart

The relationship between attention and incidental learning during discrimination training was studied in 30 children, aged 10 to 11. A polymetric eye-movement recorder measured direct visual attention. Consistent with previous findings, recall of incidental stimuli was greatest during the initial and terminal stages of intentional learning. Contrary to previous explanations, however, visual attention to incidental stimuli was not related to training. While individual differences in attention to incidental stimuli were predictive of recall, attention to incidental stimuli was not related to level of training. Results suggested that changes in higher order information processing rather than direct visual attention were responsible for the curvilinear learning of incidental stimuli during intentional training.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 2200-2207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Y. H. Chan ◽  
Antoni B. Chan ◽  
Tatia M. C. Lee ◽  
Janet H. Hsiao

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 181350
Author(s):  
G. Meinhardt ◽  
B. Meinhardt-Injac ◽  
M. Persike

Numerous studies have reported impairments in perception and recognition, and, particularly, in part-integration of faces following picture-plane inversion. Whether these findings support the notion that inversion changes face processing qualitatively remains a topic of debate. To examine whether associations and dissociations of the human face processing ability depend on stimulus orientation, we measured face recognition with the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT), along with experimental tests of face perception and selective attention to faces and non-face objects in a sample of 314 participants. Results showed strong inversion effects for all face-related tasks, and modest ones for non-face objects. Individual differences analysis revealed that the CFMT shared common variance with face perception and face-selective attention, however, independent of orientation. Regardless of whether predictor and criterion had same or different orientation, face recognition was best predicted by the same test battery. Principal component decomposition revealed a common factor for face recognition and face perception, a second common factor for face recognition and face-selective attention, and two unique factors. The patterns of factor loadings were nearly identical for upright and inverted presentation. These results indicate orientation-invariance of common variance in three domains of face processing. Since inversion impaired performance, but did not affect domain-related associations and dissociations, the findings suggest process-specific but orientation-general mechanisms. Specific limitations by constraints of individual differences analysis and test selection are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document