Holistic processing, which includes the integration of facial features and analysis of their relations to one another, is a hallmark of what makes faces ‘special’. Various experimental paradigms purport to measure holistic processing but these have often produced inconsistent results. This has led researchers to question the nature and structure of the mechanism(s) underlying holistic processing. Using an individual differences approach, researchers have examined relations between various measures of holistic processing in an attempt to resolve these questions. In keeping with this, we examined relationships between four commonly used measures of holistic face processing in a large group of participants (N = 223): (1) The Face Inversion Effect, (2) the Part Whole Effect (PWE), (3) the Composite Face Effect, and (4) the Configural Featural Detection Task (CFDT). Several novel methodological and analytical elements were introduced, including the use of factor analysis and the inclusion of control conditions to confirm the face specificity of all of the effects measured. The four indexes of holistic processing derived from each measure loaded onto two factors, one encompassing the PWE and the CFDT, and one encompassing the CE. The 16 conditions tested across the four tasks loaded onto four factors, each factor corresponding to a different measure. These results, together with those of other studies, suggest that holistic processing is a multifaceted construct and that different measures tap into distinct but partially overlapping elements of it.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
While the distinction between configural and holistic was made explicit in earlier studies (Maurer et al., 2002), the two concepts seem to have merged in more recent literature (Richler et al., 2012). This has led us, and others (e.g., Rezlescu et al., 2017), to incorporate these two mechanisms under the umbrella term ‘holistic’.
We have addressed the question of whether holistic processing is linked to general face recognition abilities in a separate study (Nelson et al., 2016). The reader can turn to the following for more information: DeGutis et al. (2013b); Konar et al. (2010); McGugin et al. (2012); Richler, Cheung, and Gauthier (2011a); Richler et al. (2014, 2015); R. Wang et al. (2012).
As previously mentioned, holistic processing can be elicited by objects of expertise. As such, the effects revealed by these paradigms can be found in rare cases with individuals who have developed expertise with individuation of other homogeneous nonface object categories via lifelong exposure or extensive training (see Richler & Gauthier, 2014; but see McKone et al., 2007).
The amount of shared variance between tasks remained modest even after disattenuation (see Supplement: Disattenuated correlations).
Boutet, I., Collin, C., & Faubert, J. (2003). Configural face encoding and spatial frequency information. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 65(7), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194835
Boutet, I., & Faubert, J. (2006). Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193432
Boutet, I., Gentes-Hawn, A., & Chaudhuri, A. (2002). The influence of attention on holistic face encoding. Cognition, 84(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00072-0
Boutet, I., Lemieux, C. L., Goulet, M. A., & Collin, C. A. (2017). Faces elicit different scanning patterns depending on task demands. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(4), 1050–1063. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1284-y.
Boutet, I., & Meinhardt-Injac, B. (2018). Age differences in face processing: The role of perceptual degradation and holistic processing. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 74(6), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx172
Boutet, I., Shah, D. K., Collin, C. A., Berti, S., Persike, M., & Meinhardt-Injac, B. (2020). Age-related changes in amplitude, latency and specialization of ERP responses to faces and watches. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1–28. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1708253
Brecht, K. F., Wagener, L., Ostojić, L., Clayton, N. S., & Nieder, A. (2017). Comparing the face inversion effect in crows and humans. Journal of Comparative Physiology. A, Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 203(12), 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-017-1211-7
Burton, A. M., Schweinberger, S. R., Jenkins, R., & Kaufmann, J. M. (2015). Arguments against a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615583129
Caharel, S., Fiori, N., Bernard, C., Lalonde, R., & Rebaï, M. (2006). The effects of inversion and eye displacements of familiar and unknown faces on early and late-stage ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.002
Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1979). An empirical comparison of coefficient alpha, Guttman's lambda-2, and MSPLIT maximized split-half reliability estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 89–99.
Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception, 34(9), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5192
Cooper, S. R., Gonthier, C., Barch, D. M., & Braver, T. S. (2017). The role of psychometrics in individual differences research in cognition: A case study of the AX-CPT. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01482
Corrow, S. L., Dalrymple, K. A., & Barton, J. J. (2016). Prosopagnosia: Current perspectives. Eye and Brain, 8, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.2147/EB.S92838
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. http://www.pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943
DeGutis, J., Cohan, S., Mercado, R. J., Wilmer, J., & Nakayama, K. (2013). Holistic processing of the mouth but not the eyes in developmental prosopagnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(5/6), 419–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2012.754745
DeGutis, J., Wilmer, J., Mercado, R. J., & Cohan, S. (2013). Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability. Cognition, 126(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.004
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-34184.108.40.206
Edelman, G. M., & Gally, J. A. (2013). Reentry: A key mechanism for integration of brain function. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00063
Farah, M. J., Levinson, K. L., & Klein, K. L. (1995). Face perception and within-category discrimination in prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 33(6), 661–674.
Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Tanaka, J. N., & Drain, M. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105(3), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.482
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Feng, C., Wang, H., Lu, N., Chen, T., He, H., Lu, Y., & Tu, X. M. (2014). Log-transformation and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(2), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.02.009
Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3012
Gauthier, I., Chua, K.-W., & Richler, J. J. (2018). How holistic processing of faces relates to cognitive control and intelligence. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1449–1460. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1518-7
Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2002). Human neural systems for face recognition and social communication. Biological Psychiatry, 51(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01330-0
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
Hildebrandt, A., Sommer, W., Herzmann, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2010). Structural invariance and age-related performance differences in face cognition. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 794–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019774
Hogg, R. V. (1979). An introduction to robust estimation. in R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics (pp. 1–17). Academic Press.
Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics. John Wiley and Sons.
Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Erroneous interpretation of difference scores: Application to a recent example. Intelligence, 14(2), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896%2890%2990005-E
Jacques, C., & Rossion, B. (2009). The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: Electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. Journal of Vision, 9(6), 8.1–16. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.6.8
Jaworska, K., Yi, F., Ince, R. A. A., van Rijsbergen, N. J., Schyns, P. G., & Rousselet, G. A. (2019). Healthy aging delays the neural processing of face features relevant for behavior by 40 ms. Human Brain Mapping, 41(5), 1212–1225. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24869
Konar, Y., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356508
Lavallée, M. M., Gandini, D., Rouleau, I., Vallet, G. T., Joannette, M., Kergoat, M.-J., Busigny, T., Rossion, B., & Joubert, S. (2016). A qualitative impairment in face perception in Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence from a reduced face inversion effect. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 51(4), 1225–1236. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-151027
Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(2), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249800390583
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513
Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613%2802%2901903-4
McGugin, R. W., Richler, J. J., Herzmann, G., Speegle, M., & Gauthier, I. (2012). The Vanderbilt Expertise Test reveals domain-general and domain-specific sex effects in object recognition. Vision Research, 69, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.014
McKone, E., Davies, A. A., Darke, H., Crookes, K., Wickramariyaratne, T., Zappia, S., Fiorentini, C., Favelle, S., Broughton, M., & Fernando, D. (2013). Importance of the inverted control in measuring holistic face processing with the composite effect and part-whole effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00033
McKone, E., Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B. C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.002
Mckone E. M., & Robbins, R. R. (2011) Are faces special? In A. C. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnson, & J. V. Haxby (Eds.), The handbook of face perception (pp. 149–176). Oxford University Press.
Meinhardt, G., Meinhardt-Injac, B., & Persike, M. (2019). Orientation-invariance of individual differences in three face processing tasks. Royal Society Open Science, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181350
Meinhardt-Injac, B., Boutet, I., Persike, M., Meinhardt, G., & Imhof, M. (2016). From development to aging: Holistic face perception in children, younger and older adults. Cognition, 158, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.020
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Musel, B., Chauvin, A., Guyader, N., Chokron, S., & Peyrin, C. (2012). Is coarse-to-fine strategy sensitive to normal aging? PLOS ONE, 7(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038493
Negrini, M., Brkić, D., Pizzamiglio, S., Premoli, I., & Rivolta, D. (2017). Neurophysiological correlates of featural and spacing processing for face and nonface stimuli. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00333
Nelson, E.A., Boutet, I., & Collin, C. A. (2016). Commonly used face recognition tasks do not measure the same construct: Evidence from four holistic/configural tasks and the Cambridge Face Memory Test. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne do Psychologie Experimentale, 70, 399–399.
Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12(2), 131–146.
Peters, J. C., Goebel, R., & Goffaux, V. (2018). From coarse to fine: Interactive feature processing precedes local feature analysis in human face perception. Biological Psychology, 138, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.07.009
Racca, A., Amadei, E., Ligout, S., Guo, K., Meints, K., & Mills, D. (2010). Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 13(3), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0303-3
Rakover, S. S. (2013). Explaining the face-inversion effect: The face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 665–692. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0388-1
Rezlescu, C., Susilo, T., Wilmer, J. B., & Caramazza, A. (2017). The inversion, part-whole, and composite effects reflect distinct perceptual mechanisms with varied relationships to face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1961–1973. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000400
Richler, J. J., Bukach, C. M., & Gauthier, I. (2009a). Context influences holistic processing of nonface objects in the composite task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(3), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.530
Richler, J. J., Cheung, O. S., & Gauthier, I. (2011). Holistic processing predicts face recognition. Psychological Science, 22(4), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611401753
Richler, J. J., Floyd, R. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). The Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test: A short and reliable measure of holistic face processing. Journal of Vision, 14(11):10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.11.10
Richler, J. J., Floyd, R. J., & Gauthier, I. (2015). About-face on face recognition ability and holistic processing. Journal of Vision, 15(9), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.9.15
Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1281–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037004
Richler, J. J., Mack, M. L., Gauthier, I., & Palmeri, T. J. (2009b). Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance. Vision Research, 49(23), 2856–2861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.025.
Richler, J. J., Mack, M. L., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2011). Inverted faces are (eventually) processed holistically. Vision Research, 51(3), 333-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.014
Richler, J. J., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2012). Meanings, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3,1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00553
Riesenhuber, M., & Wolff, B. S. (2009). Task effects, performance levels, features, configurations, and holistic face processing: A reply to Rossion. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.07.004
Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2003). Can holistic processing be learned for inverted faces?. Cognition, 88(1), 79–107.
Robotham, R. J., & Starrfelt, R. (2018). Tests of whole upright face processing in prosopagnosia: A literature review. Neuropsychologia, 121, 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.10.018
Ross, D. A., Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2015). Reliability of composite-task measurements of holistic face processing. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0497-4
Rossion, B. (2013). The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception. Visual Cognition, 21, 139–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.772929.
Rossion, B., & Boremanse, A. (2008). Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: Evidence from the face composite illusion. Journal of Vision, 8(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.4.3
Rotshtein, P., Geng, J. J., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(9), 1435–1452. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1435
Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J. S., & Collishaw, S. M. (2002). Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. In: H. H. Bülthoff, C. Wallraven, S.-W. Lee, & T. A. Poggio (Eds.), Biologically motivated computer vision (Vol. 2525, pp. 643–650). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36181-2_64
Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01895.x
Stein, T., Sterzer, P., & Peelen, M. V. (2012). Privileged detection of conspecifics: Evidence from inversion effects during continuous flash suppression. Cognition, 125(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.005
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.09.001
Sugase-Miyamoto, Y., Matsumoto, N., & Kawano, K. (2011). Role of temporal processing stages by inferior temporal neurons in facial recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00141
Sunday, M. A., Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2017). Limited evidence of individual differences in holistic processing in different versions of the part-whole paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(5), 1453–1465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1311-z
Susilo, T., Rezlescu, C., & Duchaine, B. (2013). The composite effect for inverted faces is reliable at large sample sizes and requires the basic face configuration. Journal of Vision, 13(13), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.13.14
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401045
Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211301
Tanaka, J. W., & Simonyi, D. (2016). The “parts and wholes” of face recognition: A review of the literature. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1876–1889. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1146780
Taschereau-Dumouchel, V., Rossion, B., Schyns, P. G., & Gosselin, F. (2010). Interattribute distances do not represent the identity of real world faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–10.
Tomonaga, M. (2018). Inverted face with upright body: evidence for face inversion effect in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) under the preferential looking procedure. BioRxiv, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1101/266676
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 43(2), 161–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400966
Valentine, T., Lewis, M. B., & Hills, P. J. (2016). Face-space: A unifying concept in face recognition research. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1996–2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.990392
Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0721-5
Wang, M.-Y., & Takeuchi, H. (2017). Individual recognition and the “face inversion effect” in medaka fish (Oryzias latipes). ELife, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24728
Wang, R., Li, J., Fang, H., Tian, M., & Liu, J. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058253
Wang, Z., Quinn, P. C., Jin, H., Sun, Y. H. P., Tanaka, J. W., Pascalis, O., & Lee, K. (2019). A regional composite-face effect for species-specific recognition: Upper and lower halves play different roles in holistic processing of monkey faces. Vision Research, 157, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.03.004
Watson, T. L. (2013). Implications of holistic face processing in autism and schizophrenia. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00414
Wilhelm, O., Herzmann, G., Kunina, O., Danthiir, V., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2010). Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces—One element of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 530–548.
Wilmer, J. B. (2008). How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis. Spatial Vision, 21(6), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808786451408
Winne, P. H., & Belfry, M. J. (1982). Interpretive problems when correcting for attenuation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1982.tb00121.x
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145.
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160747n
Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). The neural basis of the behavioral face-inversion effect. Current Biology, 15(24), 2256–2262.
Yovel, G., Wilmer, J. B., & Duchaine, B. (2014). What can individual differences reveal about face processing? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00562
Open practices statement
This research was supported in part by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We would like to thank Isabel Gauthier for her comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Public significance statement
Holistic processing, or the integration of facial features and their relations, has become a hallmark of what is considered ‘special’ about faces. We examined the nature and structure of the mechanism(s) underlying holistic face processing by measuring relationships between four commonly used measures of holistic processing. Results suggest that holistic processing is not a single process but a number of related ones, and that different measures of holistic processing tap into distinct subprocesses. This finding helps us better understand how our visual system interprets human faces, one of the most important categories of visual stimuli in our environment.
About this article
Cite this article
Boutet, I., Nelson, E.A., Watier, N. et al. Different measures of holistic face processing tap into distinct but partially overlapping mechanisms. Atten Percept Psychophys 83, 2905–2923 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02337-7
- Face recognition
- Holistic processing
- Featural processing
- Configural processing
- Individual difference scores