How holistic processing of faces relates to cognitive control and intelligence
- 173 Downloads
The Vanderbilt Holistic Processing Test for faces (VHPT-F) is the first standard test designed to measure individual differences in holistic processing. The test measures failures of selective attention to face parts through congruency effects, an operational definition of holistic processing. However, this conception of holistic processing has been challenged by the suggestion that it may tap into the same selective attention or cognitive control mechanisms that yield congruency effects in Stroop and Flanker paradigms. Here, we report data from 130 subjects on the VHPT-F, several versions of Stroop and Flanker tasks, as well as fluid IQ. Results suggested a small degree of shared variance in Stroop and Flanker congruency effects, which did not relate to congruency effects on the VHPT-F. Variability on the VHPT-F was also not correlated with Fluid IQ. In sum, we find no evidence that holistic face processing as measured by congruency in the VHPT-F is accounted for by domain-general control mechanisms.
KeywordsFace recognition Individual differences Stroop Flanker
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (SBE-0542013 and SMA-1640681). K.-W.C. was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate fellowship. We thank Susan Benear for help with data collection.
- Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: a review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
- Chua, K. W. (2017). Holistic processing: A matter of experience (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University).Google Scholar
- Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational testing service.Google Scholar
- Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1.
- Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(6), 255–260.Google Scholar
- McGugin, R. W., Ryan, K. F., Tamber-Rosenau, B. J., & Gauthier, I. (2017). The role of experience in the face-selective response in right FFA. Cerebral Cortex, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx113.
- Nunnally Jr, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Raven, J., Raven, J. C., Court, JH (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 5: The Mill Hill vocabulary scale. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists PressGoogle Scholar
- Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., … Engle, R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359–379.Google Scholar
- Richler, J. J., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2012). Meanings, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 553.Google Scholar
- Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar