Richler Jennifer J, Gauthier Isabel, Wenger Michael J, Palmeri Thomas J
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Mar;34(2):328-42. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.328.
Researchers have used several composite face paradigms to assess holistic processing of faces. In the selective attention paradigm, participants decide whether one face part (e.g., top) is the same as a previously seen face part. Their judgment is affected by whether the irrelevant part of the test face is the same as or different than the relevant part of the study face. This failure of selective attention implies holistic processing. However, the authors show that this task alone cannot distinguish between perceptual and decisional sources of holism. The distinction can be addressed by the complete identification paradigm, in which both face parts are judged to be same or different, combined with analyses based on general recognition theory (F. G. Ashby & J. T. Townsend, 1986). The authors used a different paradigm, sequential responses, to relate these 2 paradigms empirically and theoretically. Sequential responses produced the same results as did selective attention and complete identification. Moreover, disruptions of holistic processing by systematic misalignment of the faces corresponded with systematic and significant changes in the decisional components, but not in the perceptual components, that were extracted using general recognition theory measures. This finding suggests a significant decisional component of holistic face processing in the composite face task.
研究人员已经使用了几种合成面孔范式来评估面孔的整体加工。在选择性注意范式中，参与者要判断一个面部部分（例如顶部）是否与之前看到的面部部分相同。他们的判断会受到测试面孔的无关部分与研究面孔的相关部分是相同还是不同的影响。这种选择性注意的失败意味着整体加工。然而，作者表明仅这项任务无法区分整体加工中知觉和决策的来源。可以通过完整识别范式来解决这个区分问题，即在该范式中要对面部的两个部分都判断为相同或不同，并结合基于一般识别理论（F.G.阿什比和J.T.汤森德，1986年）的分析。作者使用了一种不同的范式，即顺序反应，来从经验和理论上关联这两种范式。顺序反应产生的结果与选择性注意和完整识别产生的结果相同。此外，面孔的系统错位对面部整体加工的干扰与使用一般识别理论测量方法提取的决策成分的系统且显著的变化相对应，但与知觉成分的变化不对应。这一发现表明在合成面孔任务中面部整体加工存在显著的决策成分。
