Face and word superiority effects: Parallel effects of visual expertise.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Perception Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-26 DOI:10.1177/03010066251322631
Marko Chi-Wei Tien, Andrea Albonico, Jason J S Barton
{"title":"Face and word superiority effects: Parallel effects of visual expertise.","authors":"Marko Chi-Wei Tien, Andrea Albonico, Jason J S Barton","doi":"10.1177/03010066251322631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are several studies that compare perception for written words and faces. However, many draw conclusions from different experimental paradigms, complicating direct comparison between these stimuli. Such comparisons are of interest because of hypotheses based on neuroimaging and neuropsychological data that face and word processing may have common underlying mechanisms and neural substrates. To facilitate such comparisons, we created a novel paradigm studying face recognition that closely resembles the word-superiority test, in which a letter is more easily identified when it is embedded in a whole word than when seen in isolation or in an unpronounceable random string of letters. Forty subjects each completed both of our tests. In the traditional word-superiority test, they briefly saw a word, a pseudoword, or a nonword, then a single test letter, and were asked if the letter had been part of the initial stimulus. In the face-superiority test, they briefly saw a learned, new, or scrambled face initially, then a test facial feature in isolation, and were asked to respond whether the feature had been part of the initial stimulus. For both categories of stimuli, there were similar differences between real, pseudo-, and non-stimuli. Accuracy was lower for non-stimuli compared to pseudo- and real stimuli, which in turn did not differ from each other. Response latency was greater for non-stimuli compared to pseudo-stimuli, which in turn was greater than real stimuli. Bivariate analyses revealed significant correlations between interstimulus trials for reaction times. Our study replicated a face superiority effect utilizing a similar methodology to the word-superiority test. Additionally, response latencies follows similar patterns in the recognition of written words and faces.</p>","PeriodicalId":49708,"journal":{"name":"Perception","volume":" ","pages":"333-348"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perception","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066251322631","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are several studies that compare perception for written words and faces. However, many draw conclusions from different experimental paradigms, complicating direct comparison between these stimuli. Such comparisons are of interest because of hypotheses based on neuroimaging and neuropsychological data that face and word processing may have common underlying mechanisms and neural substrates. To facilitate such comparisons, we created a novel paradigm studying face recognition that closely resembles the word-superiority test, in which a letter is more easily identified when it is embedded in a whole word than when seen in isolation or in an unpronounceable random string of letters. Forty subjects each completed both of our tests. In the traditional word-superiority test, they briefly saw a word, a pseudoword, or a nonword, then a single test letter, and were asked if the letter had been part of the initial stimulus. In the face-superiority test, they briefly saw a learned, new, or scrambled face initially, then a test facial feature in isolation, and were asked to respond whether the feature had been part of the initial stimulus. For both categories of stimuli, there were similar differences between real, pseudo-, and non-stimuli. Accuracy was lower for non-stimuli compared to pseudo- and real stimuli, which in turn did not differ from each other. Response latency was greater for non-stimuli compared to pseudo-stimuli, which in turn was greater than real stimuli. Bivariate analyses revealed significant correlations between interstimulus trials for reaction times. Our study replicated a face superiority effect utilizing a similar methodology to the word-superiority test. Additionally, response latencies follows similar patterns in the recognition of written words and faces.

面部和单词优势效应:视觉专长的平行效应
有几项研究比较了人们对文字和面孔的感知。然而,许多人从不同的实验范式中得出结论,使这些刺激之间的直接比较复杂化。这种比较之所以有趣,是因为基于神经影像学和神经心理学数据的假设认为,面部和文字处理可能具有共同的潜在机制和神经基质。为了便于这种比较,我们创建了一个新的范式来研究人脸识别,这个范式与单词优势测试非常相似,在这个范式中,当一个字母嵌入到一个完整的单词中时,比单独出现在一个不可发音的随机字母串中更容易识别。40名受试者分别完成了我们的两项测试。在传统的单词优势测试中,他们先短暂地看到一个单词、一个假词或一个非单词,然后是一个测试字母,并被问及这个字母是否属于最初刺激的一部分。在面部优势测试中,他们首先短暂地看到一张熟悉的、新的或混乱的脸,然后是单独测试的面部特征,并被要求回答该特征是否属于初始刺激的一部分。对于这两类刺激,真实刺激、伪刺激和非刺激之间存在相似的差异。与伪刺激和真实刺激相比,非刺激的准确性较低,而伪刺激和真实刺激彼此之间没有差异。与伪刺激相比,非刺激的反应潜伏期更大,而伪刺激的反应潜伏期又大于真实刺激。双变量分析显示,间刺激试验对反应时间有显著相关性。我们的研究使用了与单词优势测试相似的方法来复制面部优势效应。此外,在识别书面文字和面孔时,反应延迟也遵循类似的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perception
Perception 医学-心理学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
74
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Perception is a traditional print journal covering all areas of the perceptual sciences, but with a strong historical emphasis on perceptual illusions. Perception is a subscription journal, free for authors to publish their research as a Standard Article, Short Report or Short & Sweet. The journal also publishes Editorials and Book Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信