Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 8, pp 2873–2880 | Cite as

Behind the face of holistic perception: Holistic processing of Gestalt stimuli and faces recruit overlapping perceptual mechanisms

  • Kim M. CurbyEmail author
  • Denise Moerel


Holistic processing, demonstrated by a failure of selective attention to individual parts within stimuli, is often considered a relatively unique feature of the processing of faces and objects of expertise. However, face-like holistic processing has been recently demonstrated for novel line stimuli with salient Gestalt perceptual grouping cues. Further, disrupting such cues within face stimuli disrupts holistic face perception. There is evidence that holistic processing of these gestalt stimuli and faces does not overlap mechanistically in the same way as does the processing of faces and objects of expertise. However, the relationship between these different manifestations of holistic processing is unclear. We developed a task to probe whether a holistic processing-specific overlap occurs at an earlier, perceptual level between the mechanisms supporting processing of faces and strong gestalt stimuli. Faces and gestalt line stimuli were overlaid, and participants made part judgments about either the faces (Experiment 1) or line stimuli (Experiment 2) in a composite task indexing holistic perception. The data revealed evidence of reciprocal interference between holistic processing of line and face stimuli, with indices of holistic processing of face and line stimuli reduced when the overlaid stimuli were also processed holistically (e.g., intact line/face stimuli) compared with when the overlaid stimuli did not commandeer holistic processing resources (e.g., misaligned line/face stimuli). This pattern is consistent with a mechanistic overlap between the holistic perception of faces and gestalt stimuli. Our results support a dual—stimulus-based and experienced-based—pathway model of holistic processing, with face stimuli using both.


Holistic perception Perceptual grouping Face perception 



This research was support by a grant to KMC from the Australian Research Council.

Open practices statement

All of the data and any material generated by the authors is available upon request to the corresponding author, providing it does not violate the approved ethics protocol. These experiments were not preregistered.


  1. Bartlett, J. C., & Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 281–316. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boggan, A. L., Bartlett, J. C., & Krawczyk, D. C. (2012). Chess masters show a hallmark of face processing with chess. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 37–42. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chua, K. W., Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). Becoming a Lunari or Taiyo expert: Learned attention to parts drives holistic processing of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1174–1182. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chua, K. W., Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2015). Holistic processing from learned attention to parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 144(4), 723–729. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Curby, K. M., & Entenman, R. J. (2016). Framing faces: Frame alignment impacts holistic face perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2569–2578. doi: Scholar
  7. Curby, K. M., & Gauthier, I. (2014). Interference between face and non-face domains of perceptual expertise: a replication and extension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 955. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Curby, K. M., Goldstein, R. R., & Blacker, K. (2013). Disrupting perceptual grouping of face parts impairs holistic face processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(1), 83–91. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curby, K. M., Entenman, R. J., & Fleming, J. T. (2016). Holistic face perception is modulated by experience-dependent perceptual grouping. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1392–1404. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curby, K. M., Huang, M., & Moerel, D. (2019). Multiple paths to holistic processing: Holistic processing of gestalt stimuli do not overlap with holistic face processing in the same manner as do objects of expertise. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81(3), 716–726. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farah, M. J. (1996). Is face recognition “special”? Evidence from neuropsychology. Behavioural Brain Research, 76(1/2), 181–189. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao, Z., Flevaris, A. V., Robertson, L. C., & Bentin, S. (2011). Priming of global and local processing of composite faces: revisiting the processing-bias effect on face perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(5), 1477-1486. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2002). Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 431–446. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauthier, I., Curran, T., Curby, K. M., & Collins, D. (2003). Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6(4), 428–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36. doi:
  16. O’Craven, K. M., Downing, P. E., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature, 401, 584–587. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1281–1302. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Roelfsema, P. R., & Houtkamp, R. (2011). Incremental grouping of image elements in vision. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(8), 2542–2572. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 221–242. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 46(2), 225–245. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Troje, N., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1996). Face recognition under varying pose: The role of texture and shape. Vision Research, 36(12), 1761–1771. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Weston, N. J., & Perfect, T. J. (2005). Effects of processing bias on the recognition of composite face halves. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1038–1042. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. (1987). Configural information in face perception. Perception, 10, 747–759. doi: Scholar
  25. Zhao, M., Bulthoff, H. H., & Bulthoff, I. (2015). A Shape-Based Account for Holistic Face Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. doi:
  26. Zhao, M., Bulthoff, H. H., & Bulthoff, I. (2016). Beyond faces and expertise: Facelike holistic processing of nonface objects in the absence of expertise. Psychological Science, 27(2), 213–222. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Elite Performance, Expertise, & TrainingMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations