FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767570128> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767570128 abstract "The Effect of Comparison on the Perceived Similarity of Faces Paula C. Engelbrecht (pce205@soton.ac.uk) School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO171BJ UK Abstract This study investigates the effect of comparison on the perceived similarity of unfamiliar faces. Participants were asked to compare pairs of faces, and to list either their commonalities or the differences between them before rating their similarity. The results of the first experiment show that listing commonalities and differences can both increase the perceived similarity of the compared faces. This pattern of results is interpreted in line with structural alignment theory which posits that the detection of commonalities is an essential component of both similarity and difference comparisons. The results of the second study show that the effect of comparison on perceptual similarity is limited by the perceptual attributes of the compared faces. Under conditions where the compared faces are highly similar and the detection of commonalities do not require any mental manipulation, comparison has little or no effect on perceived similarity. Keywords: perception. Comparison; structural alignment; face Introduction Comparison – the process of assessing commonalities and differences between two or more entities – is an integral aspect of human cognition. It plays a role in a wide variety of cognitive tasks including categorisation (Nosofsky, 1984), recognition memory (Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997), problem solving (Ross, 1989) and decision making (Simonson, 1989). The current study investigates whether comparison also plays a role in visual cognition. Specifically, it addresses the question whether comparing visual stimuli affects the perceived similarity between them. Tentative support for this notion is provided by the finding that comparing two labelled images results in an increase in their perceived similarity (Boroditsky, 2007, experiment 1). However, because the images used were labelled exemplars of common categories (e.g. horse, goat) it is not clear whether comparison has affected their perceptual similarity, their conceptual similarity, or both. Stronger evidence in support of the notion that comparison affects perceptual similarity is provided by the finding that comparing similar-looking novel objects increases their perceived similarity (Boroditsky, 2007, experiment 4). However, the novel objects used in this experiment were again labelled (e.g. Chico and Groucho). It remains unclear whether the participants were only rating the perceived visual similarity of the stimuli or whether their similarity ratings were also affected by conceptual inferences about „Chicos‟ and „Grouchos‟ they may have drawn during the comparison process. The latter interpretation is supported by findings that comparison plays an important role in the acquisition of conceptual knowledge (Gentner, Loewenstein & Thompson, 2003; Gentner & Namy, 1999). In the current study unlabelled pairs of unfamiliar faces were used as stimuli to allow the effects of comparison on perception to be dissociated from its effects on conceptual knowledge. Face perception is a well studied phenomenon that is driven by the visual attributes of a face, as well as by a host of top-down influences. For example, the visual appearance of a face affects how well it is recognised (e.g. Bartlett, Hurry & Thorley, 1984; Light, Kayra-Stuart & Hollander, 1979; Valentine, 1991). Specifically, faces that are visually distinctive have been found to elicit fewer false positives when acting as distracters (Light Kayra-Stuart & Hollander, 1979; Valentine, 1991), to elicit more hits when acting as targets (Bartlett, Hurry & Thorley, 1984; Shepherd, Gibling & Ellis, 1991) and to be recognised faster (Valentine & Bruce, 1986a, 1986b). A well documented top-down influence on face perception is the availability of categorical information. A study using morphed images, which represented a continua of familiar famous faces, found that participants were better at discriminating between face pairs that straddle apparent category boundaries (i.e. where one comparison face is slightly more similar to famous face A; the other is slightly more similar to famous face B), than when both comparison faces are similar to the same famous face (Beale & Keil, 1995). More recently, categorical effects have also been observed for pre-experimentally unfamiliar faces, which were presented in conjunction with category labels (names) prior to the discrimination task (Levin & Beale, 2000; Kitukani, Roberson & Hanley, 2008). These findings illustrate that categorical effects in face perception can be induced quickly. There is evidence to suggest that comparison may also act as a top down influence on face perception. A study on face memory conducted by Mantyla (1997), found that focusing on differences between faces led to a greater number of „remember‟ responses (explicit recollection) than did focusing on similarities. Conversely, focusing on similarities among faces was associated with a greater number of „know‟ responses (familiarity). Mantyla (1997) interprets these findings in light of the distinctiveness hypothesis. According to the distinctiveness hypothesis remembering is facilitated by perceptual and conceptual processes that focus encoding on the distinctive attributes of the information being encoded. Processes that emphasize similarities, on the other hand, facilitate familiarity-based recognition (Mantyla, 1997). Despite the observed differences in recollection experience, participants who focused on differences between faces did not recognize more faces correctly than participants who focused on similarities (Mantyla, 1997)." @default.
• W2767570128 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767570128 creator A5091014079 @default.
• W2767570128 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W2767570128 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2767570128 title "The effect of comparison on the perceived similarity of faces" @default.
• W2767570128 cites W1975752646 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W1976718127 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W1977837917 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W1979766417 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2000817595 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2008252115 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2022248933 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2023918104 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2036114930 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2045693110 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2054137660 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2059265105 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2073351001 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2092631953 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2122362606 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2122865866 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2128195326 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2134570361 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2157695255 @default.
• W2767570128 cites W2169723924 @default.
• W2767570128 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2767570128 type Work @default.
• W2767570128 sameAs 2767570128 @default.
• W2767570128 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2767570128 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2767570128 hasAuthorship W2767570128A5091014079 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C103278499 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C115961682 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C103278499 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C115961682 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C154945302 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C15744967 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C169760540 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C169900460 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C180747234 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C26760741 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C41008148 @default.
• W2767570128 hasConceptScore W2767570128C77805123 @default.
• W2767570128 hasIssue "31" @default.
• W2767570128 hasLocation W27675701281 @default.
• W2767570128 hasOpenAccess W2767570128 @default.
• W2767570128 hasPrimaryLocation W27675701281 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W1812049735 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2071362234 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2108442647 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2124019552 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2278549848 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2396699279 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2581390987 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2621575405 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2767335398 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2767977674 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2788832751 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2912284706 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W2982170838 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3005616466 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3021741163 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3029815785 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3091251450 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3126006891 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W3175935245 @default.
• W2767570128 hasRelatedWork W594260076 @default.
• W2767570128 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2767570128 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2767570128 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2767570128 magId "2767570128" @default.
• W2767570128 workType "article" @default.