Holistic processing is modulated by the probability that parts contain task-congruent information.

Kim M Curby, Lina Teichmann, Mary A Peterson, Sarah S Shomstein
Author Information
  1. Kim M Curby: School of Psychological Sciences and the Performance and Expertise Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kim.curby@mq.edu.au. ORCID
  2. Lina Teichmann: Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
  3. Mary A Peterson: Cognitive Science Program and Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
  4. Sarah S Shomstein: Department of Psychology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.

Abstract

Holistic processing of face and non-face stimuli has been framed as a perceptual strategy, with classic hallmarks of holistic processing, such as the composite effect, reflecting a failure of selective attention, which is a consequence of this strategy. Further, evidence that holistic processing is impacted by training different patterns of attentional prioritization suggest that it may be a result of learned attention to the whole, which renders it difficult to attend to only part of a stimulus. If so, holistic processing should be modulated by the same factors that shape attentional selection, such as the probability that distracting or task-relevant information will be present. In contrast, other accounts suggest that it is the match to an internal face template that triggers specialized holistic processing mechanisms. Here we probed these accounts by manipulating the probability, across different testing sessions, that the task-irrelevant face part in the composite face task will contain task-congruent or -incongruent information. Attentional accounts of holistic processing predict that when the probability that the task-irrelevant part contains congruent information is low (25%), holistic processing should be attenuated compared to when this probability is high (75%). In contrast, template-based accounts of holistic face processing predict that it will be unaffected by manipulation given the integrity of the faces remains intact. Experiment 1 found evidence consistent with attentional accounts of holistic face processing and Experiment 2 extends these findings to holistic processing of non-face stimuli. These findings are broadly consistent with learned attention accounts of holistic processing.

Keywords

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Aug;144(4):723-9 [PMID: 25775049]
  2. Vision Res. 2011 Jun 1;51(11):1273-8 [PMID: 21496463]
  3. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Apr;6(4):428-32 [PMID: 12627167]
  4. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Apr;44(4):626-644 [PMID: 29035072]
  5. Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):583-92 [PMID: 9337578]
  6. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Jul;73(5):1477-86 [PMID: 21359683]
  7. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Nov;81(8):2873-2880 [PMID: 31165455]
  8. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Jan;75(1):83-91 [PMID: 23179914]
  9. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 [PMID: 9176953]
  10. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 [PMID: 9176952]
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Jun;40(3):1174-82 [PMID: 24588261]
  12. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):247-53 [PMID: 15260189]
  13. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 May;84(4):1234-1247 [PMID: 35460025]
  14. Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 10;5:955 [PMID: 25346702]
  15. Psychol Rev. 1991 Apr;98(2):164-81 [PMID: 2047512]
  16. Cognition. 2002 Jul;84(3):321-41 [PMID: 12044738]
  17. Behav Brain Sci. 2016 Jan;39:e229 [PMID: 26189677]
  18. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Apr;28(2):431-46 [PMID: 11999864]
  19. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Jan;44(1):13-17 [PMID: 29309194]
  20. Calif Med. 1961 Jan;94:7-8 [PMID: 13703681]
  21. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Oct;83(7):2905-2923 [PMID: 34180032]
  22. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008;31:411-37 [PMID: 18558862]
  23. Psychol Sci. 2016 Feb;27(2):213-22 [PMID: 26674129]
  24. Psychol Sci. 2003 Sep;14(5):510-5 [PMID: 12930485]
  25. Cortex. 2018 May;102:67-95 [PMID: 29096874]
  26. Perception. 1987;16(6):747-59 [PMID: 3454432]
  27. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Jul;81(5):1283-1296 [PMID: 30825115]
  28. Psychon Bull Rev. 2020 Oct;27(5):981-989 [PMID: 32495212]
  29. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Apr;81(3):716-726 [PMID: 30569435]
  30. Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):482-98 [PMID: 9697428]
  31. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 May;84(4):1087-1097 [PMID: 35194772]
  32. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1994 Jun;123(2):161-77 [PMID: 8014611]
  33. Vis cogn. 2021;29(1):1-21 [PMID: 33574729]
  34. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1993 May;46(2):225-45 [PMID: 8316637]
  35. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 May;80(4):860-870 [PMID: 29476331]
  36. Front Psychol. 2014 Nov 06;5:1195 [PMID: 25414676]

MeSH Term

Humans
Facial Recognition
Cues
Learning
Probability

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0processingholisticfaceaccountsprobabilityinformationHolisticattentionattentionalpartwillnon-facestimulistrategycompositeevidencedifferentsuggestlearnedmodulatedcontrasttask-irrelevantcontaintask-congruentpredictExperimentconsistentfindingsframedperceptualclassichallmarkseffectreflectingfailureselectiveconsequenceimpactedtrainingpatternsprioritizationmayresultwholerendersdifficultattendstimulusfactorsshapeselectiondistractingtask-relevantpresentmatchinternaltemplatetriggersspecializedmechanismsprobedmanipulatingacrosstestingsessionstask-incongruentAttentionalcontainscongruentlow25%attenuatedcomparedhigh75%template-basedunaffectedmanipulationgivenintegrityfacesremainsintact1found2extendsbroadlypartsAttentionFaceProbability

Similar Articles

Cited By