The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Tests for configural processing in the Thatcher Illusion

Tests for configural processing in the Thatcher Illusion
Tests for configural processing in the Thatcher Illusion
Thatcherisation of facial features is immediately apparent only in upright faces. Detection of Thatcherisation is therefore widely upheld as being dependent on configural processing. Configural processing has clear predictions of perceptual dependence between facial features and of supercapacity processing.

Perceptual dependence: Configurality in General Recognition Theory (GRT, Ashby & Townsend, 1986) can be conceptualized in terms of violations of perceptual independence, in which the perceptions of the eyes and mouth of a single face are positively correlated; for example, the more inverted the eyes look, the more inverted the mouth will look. Participants were briefly presented with normal, partially Thatcherised and fully Thatcherised faces, and were asked to report whether the outline, eyes and mouth were upright or inverted. Consistent with the predictions, multi-dimensional probit models (DeCarlo, 2003) revealed that within-stimulus perceptual interactions occurred more frequently for upright than inverted faces. However, for the Thatcherised stimulus itself, there was no overall correlation between the eyes and the mouth, suggesting a lack of configural processing for this type of stimulus.

Processing capacity: Supercapacity processing is predicted to accompany configural processing (O’Toole, Wenger & Townsend, 2001; Wenger & Townsend, 2001). Therefore, the detection of Thatcherised features in upright faces should be marked by supercapacity processing of inverted eyes and mouths relative to the inversion of only eyes or only mouths. Response times were used to compute measures of processing capacity (capacity coefficient, Townsend & Wenger, 2004; proportional hazards ratio, Wenger & Gibson, 2006) in Thatcherised upright faces. Results demonstrated limited evidence of supercapacity processing, and only in some individuals, implying that configural processing is not necessary for processing of upright Thatcherised faces.

In summary, predictions from GRT and of processing capacity were tested across two separate studies, with little evidence found for perceptual independence or supercapacity processing for Thatcherised face stimuli.
635-635
Menneer, T
d684eaf6-1494-4004-9973-cb8ccc628efa
Mestry, N
7f725141-430d-4118-a43d-943f6bae787f
Wenger, Michael J.
af117fc0-610a-460e-bd72-57978ffcf61b
Donnelly, N
05c83b6b-ee8d-4c9d-85dc-c5dcd6b5427b
Menneer, T
d684eaf6-1494-4004-9973-cb8ccc628efa
Mestry, N
7f725141-430d-4118-a43d-943f6bae787f
Wenger, Michael J.
af117fc0-610a-460e-bd72-57978ffcf61b
Donnelly, N
05c83b6b-ee8d-4c9d-85dc-c5dcd6b5427b

Menneer, T, Mestry, N, Wenger, Michael J. and Donnelly, N (2012) Tests for configural processing in the Thatcher Illusion. Vision Sciences Society. p. 635 . (doi:10.1167/12.9.635).

Record type: Conference or Workshop Item (Poster)

Abstract

Thatcherisation of facial features is immediately apparent only in upright faces. Detection of Thatcherisation is therefore widely upheld as being dependent on configural processing. Configural processing has clear predictions of perceptual dependence between facial features and of supercapacity processing.

Perceptual dependence: Configurality in General Recognition Theory (GRT, Ashby & Townsend, 1986) can be conceptualized in terms of violations of perceptual independence, in which the perceptions of the eyes and mouth of a single face are positively correlated; for example, the more inverted the eyes look, the more inverted the mouth will look. Participants were briefly presented with normal, partially Thatcherised and fully Thatcherised faces, and were asked to report whether the outline, eyes and mouth were upright or inverted. Consistent with the predictions, multi-dimensional probit models (DeCarlo, 2003) revealed that within-stimulus perceptual interactions occurred more frequently for upright than inverted faces. However, for the Thatcherised stimulus itself, there was no overall correlation between the eyes and the mouth, suggesting a lack of configural processing for this type of stimulus.

Processing capacity: Supercapacity processing is predicted to accompany configural processing (O’Toole, Wenger & Townsend, 2001; Wenger & Townsend, 2001). Therefore, the detection of Thatcherised features in upright faces should be marked by supercapacity processing of inverted eyes and mouths relative to the inversion of only eyes or only mouths. Response times were used to compute measures of processing capacity (capacity coefficient, Townsend & Wenger, 2004; proportional hazards ratio, Wenger & Gibson, 2006) in Thatcherised upright faces. Results demonstrated limited evidence of supercapacity processing, and only in some individuals, implying that configural processing is not necessary for processing of upright Thatcherised faces.

In summary, predictions from GRT and of processing capacity were tested across two separate studies, with little evidence found for perceptual independence or supercapacity processing for Thatcherised face stimuli.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: August 2012
Venue - Dates: Vision Sciences Society, 2012-08-01
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 385516
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/385516
PURE UUID: 49c02cca-f1db-4ac7-b79a-51d4e7128227

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Jan 2016 15:14
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 22:19

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: T Menneer
Author: N Mestry
Author: Michael J. Wenger
Author: N Donnelly

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×