Memory for Faces

Memory for Faces

1. Bruce et al. (1999)

   • Simple recognition of faces is poor
     • Match the target face to a one in a selection of faces (i.e no memory component)
       • Results: Only 65 % accurate when the correct face was in the lineup. 35% of pps still picked a face even when the correct one was not in the lineup

2. Prosopagnosia

   • A profound inability to recognise faces
     • Ability to make fine discriminations between objects is unimpaired
   • Commonly a result of damage to the FUSIFORM FACE AREA of the brain
     • This area responds more to faces than objects (Kanwisher et al , 1997)
       • Specialisation

3. Something special about face processing / memory?

   • Farah et al (1995)
     • Prosopagnosic patient LH had damage to: -Temporo-occipito regions -Right inferior frontal lobe -Anterior temporal lobe
       • STUDY PHASE: Photos of face and non-face objects
         • TEST PHASE: Old / New recognition memory task
           • RESULT: LH appeared to have SPECIFIC IMPAIRMENT in memory for FACES

4. Factors Influencing Face Memory

   • Patterson & Baddeley (1977)
     • STUDY PHASE: PPs categorise faces based on Physical features (e.g how close together are the eyes) or Psychological features (e.g. how intelligent)
       • TEST PHASE: Recognition memory task (some faces disguised e.g. beard)
         • RESULTS: Disguise dramatically reduced recognition performance (d' went from 3.00 to 0.58)
     • Changes in appearance affect face recognition. With a wig / beard, you HALVE your CHANCES of being RECOGNISED as the guilty party
       • The more of the face you can see, the better the recognition
   • VERBAL OVERSHADOWING EFFECT
     • Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990)
     • STUDY PHASE: 30 sec video of bank robbery
       • RETENTION INTERVAL: 20 min unrelated task
         • Face verbalisation group - 5 mins write a detailed description of robber's face Control group - 5 mins unrelated activity
           • Pick robber form lineup of 8 (or respond 'not present')
             • Verbalising is counter- intuitive, verbal memory interferes with visual memory

5. What explains the difference in face memory?

   • Holistic / Global Processing
     • Processing the overall structure of a face / object and paying little attention to detail
     • FARAH (1994)
       • Suggested that we PROCESS FACES HOLISTICALLY whereas we process OBJECTS in a more DETAILED fashion

6. Global vs. Local processing

   • Macrae & Lewis (2002)
     • STUDY PHASE: 30 sec video of bank robbery
       • 10 mins Navon Letter Task - Global processing group (name global letter e.g S) or Local Processing group (elements of global letter e.g F)
         • TEST PHASE: Pick robber from lineup (no 'not present' response option
           • RESULTS: Encouraging a global processing strategy may enhance recognition. Local processing strategy impairs performance. The verbal overshadowing effect may encourage local processing.
   • Processing - Individual differences
     • Darling et al (2009)
     • STUDY PHASE: Navon letter task to determine natural processing (global or local)
       • TEST PHASE 6 WEEKS LATER: Video of robbery, 10 min retention interval, pick form lineup
         • Individuals with strong natural global processing performed better on line up than those with local processing bias

7. Alternative account of Verbal Shadowing

   • Verbalisation of a face makes eyewitnesses more reluctant to identify anyone in a lineup (Increased likelihood to respond "not present")
     • Suggests that verbalisation encourages people to adopt a more stringent recognition criterion

8. Pre-experimental familiarity

   • Subsequent improvement in memory if the pp is familiar with the target beforehand
     • Also, digitally edited images have shown that identification accuracy is reduced when face is obscured PPs of a study could identify targets face even if body was obscured and image quality was poor
   • Burton et al (1999)

Images and files in the map