Effect of Individual Differences in Fear and Anxiety on Face Perception of Human and Android Agents

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 796-800
Author(s):  
Sarah Schroeder ◽  
Kurtis Goad ◽  
Nicole Rothner ◽  
Ali Momen ◽  
Eva Wiese
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Perceptual Experience ◽  
Negative Emotions ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
The Face ◽  
Fear And Anxiety ◽  
Human Faces

People process human faces configurally—as a Gestalt or integrated whole—but perceive objects in terms of their individual features. As a result, faces—but not objects—are more difficult to process when presented upside down versus upright. Previous research demonstrates that this inversion effect is not observed when recognizing previously seen android faces, suggesting they are processed more like objects, perhaps due to a lack of perceptual experience and/or motivation to recognize android faces. The current study aimed to determine whether negative emotions, particularly fear of androids, may lessen configural processing of android faces compared to human faces. While the current study replicated previous research showing a greater inversion effect for human compared to android faces, we did not find evidence that negative emotions—such as fear—towards androids influenced the face inversion effect. We discuss the implications of this study and opportunities for future research.

Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jisien Yang ◽  
Adrian Schwaninger
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Face Processing ◽  
Underlying Mechanism ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Major Contributor ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face

Configural processing has been considered the major contributor to the face inversion effect (FIE) in face recognition. However, most researchers have only obtained the FIE with one specific ratio of configural alteration. It remains unclear whether the ratio of configural alteration itself can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. We aimed to clarify this issue by manipulating the configural information parametrically using six different ratios, ranging from 4% to 24%. Participants were asked to judge whether a pair of faces were entirely identical or different. The paired faces that were to be compared were presented either simultaneously (Experiment 1) or sequentially (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed that the FIE was observed only when the ratio of configural alteration was in the intermediate range. These results indicate that even though the FIE has been frequently adopted as an index to examine the underlying mechanism of face processing, the emergence of the FIE is not robust with any configural alteration but dependent on the ratio of configural alteration.

Configural Processing Hypothesis and Face-Inversion Effect

2010 ◽  
pp. 316-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam S. Rakover ◽  
Sam S. Rakover
Keyword(s):  
Visual Information ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
Geometrical Illusions ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Difference

Perception and recognition of faces presented upright are better than Perception and recognition of faces presented inverted. The difference between upright and inverted orientations is greater in face recognition than in non-face object recognition. This Face-Inversion Effect is explained by the “Configural Processing” hypothesis that inversion disrupts configural information processing and leaves the featural information intact. The present chapter discusses two important findings that cast doubt on this hypothesis: inversion impairs recognition of isolated features (hair & forehead, and eyes), and certain facial configural information is not affected by inversion. The chapter focuses mainly on the latter finding, which reveals a new type of facial configural information, the “Eye-Illusion”, which is based on certain geometrical illusions. The Eye-Illusion tended to resist inversion in experimental tasks of both perception and recognition. It resisted inversion also when its magnitude was reduced. Similar results were obtained with “Headlight-Illusion” produced on a car‘s front, and with “Form-Illusion” produced in geometrical forms. However, the Eye-Illusion was greater than the Headlight-Illusion, which in turn was greater than the Form-Illusion. These findings were explained by the “General Visual-Mechanism” hypothesis in terms of levels of visual information learning. The chapter proposes that a face is composed of various kinds of configural information that are differently impaired by inversion: from no effect (the Eye-Illusion) to a large effect (the Face-Inversion Effect).

scholarly journals Individual Differences in (Non-Visual) Processing Style Predict the Face Inversion Effect

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie A. Wyer ◽  
Douglas Martin ◽  
Tracey Pickup ◽  
C. Neil Macrae
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Processing Style ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face

scholarly journals Using transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to investigate why faces are and are not special

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciro Civile ◽  
Samantha Quaglia ◽  
Emika Waguri ◽  
Maddy Ward ◽  
Rossy McLaren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Sham Group ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
The Face

AbstractWe believe we are now in a position to answer the question, "Are faces special?" inasmuch as this applies to the face inversion effect (better performance for upright vs inverted faces). Using a double-blind, between-subject design, in two experiments (n = 96) we applied a specific tDCS procedure targeting the Fp3 area while participants performed a matching-task with faces (Experiment 1a) or checkerboards from a familiar prototype-defined category (Experiment 1b). Anodal tDCS eliminated the checkerboard inversion effect reliably obtained in the sham group, but only reduced it for faces (although the reduction was significant). Thus, there is a component to the face inversion effect that we are not affecting with a tDCS procedure that can eliminate the checkerboard inversion effect. We suggest that the reduction reflects the loss of an expertise-based component in the face inversion effect, and the residual is due to a face-specific component of that effect.

scholarly journals The time course of the face inversion effect

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 619-619
Author(s):  
C. Jacques ◽  
B. Rossion
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document