1 / 48

LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN FACIAL MEMORY

LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN FACIAL MEMORY. Sarah Babcock, Rose Ann Calvieri, Lauren Cudney, Vedran Dzebic ,Silvia Eleftheriou, and Jeff Mazurkewich ,. TOPIC DEVELOPMENT. Progression of ideas for possible studies: Initial thought: Combine spatial memory with decision making task

destiny-wilcox
Download Presentation

LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN FACIAL MEMORY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LEVELS OF PROCESSING IN FACIAL MEMORY Sarah Babcock, Rose Ann Calvieri, Lauren Cudney, Vedran Dzebic ,Silvia Eleftheriou, and Jeff Mazurkewich,

  2. TOPIC DEVELOPMENT Progression of ideas for possible studies: Initial thought: Combine spatial memory with decision making task Replaced spatial memory with word memory Word memory is well studied, we wanted to approach memory from a different angle Memory involving different levels of processing regarding objects Decided to examine faces instead of objects

  3. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY • We encounter faces constantly, making facial memory a crucial skill for social interactions • Examining techniques of facial memory can potentially improve ease of everyday social interactions

  4. LITERATURE: CRAIK & TULVING (1975) • Experiment • Processing words at different levels • Subjects presented with words & asked questions to various levels • Shallow = same font • Medium = counting letters in word • Deep = synonyms • Results • Better memory recall for words processed at a deeper level

  5. Literature: Bruce & valentine (1985) • Experiment • Priming task: Subjects were shown the name or photo of a celebrity • Recognition task: Subjects were then shown a series of photos of celebrities and asked to name them • The subject had seen either the name, same photo or a different photo of the same celebrity in the priming task • Results • Better memory for faces which subject’s had seen pictures of in the priming task (same or different)

  6. Experiment Source memory for faces (internal or external) Questions were asked about faces in a presentation of facial images The subject either generated the answer or the answer was provided for them (accompanied the face) Results Subjects were better at source memory for faces which asked them to generate answers (internal), than for faces accompanied by the answers (external) LITERATURE: GEGHMAN & MULTHAUP (2004)

  7. PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT • Purpose: • To determine whether different questions can elicit deeper levels of processing • To establish if deeper levels increase subsequent memory on a facial recognition task

  8. LEVELS OF PROCESSING • Questions: • 1) What is this person’s most attractive feature? • 2) What job do you think this person has? • 3) How old is this person? • 4) What is this person’s gender? • Examine whether any of these questions will result in deeper level of processing, measured by accuracy of facial recognition

  9. HYPOTHESIS If different levels of facial processing can be achieved, deeper level processing will lead to better recognition of faces Hypothesized to elicit shallower processing: Questions about gender and age Hypothesized deeper processing: Questions about attractiveness and occupation Kirkland, Reynolds and Pezdek (1992)

  10. Methods • Subjects • 30 subjects • 24 in experimental group • 6 in control group • All Mac undergrads • Age range 18-24, Mean 20

  11. Methods • Stimulus/Materials • Study Task • 32 faces • Experimental group • Each Face paired with one question • Control group • No questions presented

  12. Methods • Stimulus/Materials • Recognition Task • 60 faces (28 novel) • Have you seen this face in the previous presentation? • Yes/No responses • All subjects given same task

  13. Methods • Cover Story • Study Task – Subjects were told: • There will be questions about the faces • They need to answer as quickly as possible the questions • We are looking at how much you can tell about a person by their appearance • Recognition Task: • Subjects were naïve of recognition task to follow the study task

  14. LEVELS OF PROCESSING • Questions: • 1) What is this person’s most attractive feature? • 2) What job do you think this person has? • 3) How old is this person? • 4) What is this person’s gender? Examine whether any of these questions will result in deeper level of processing, measured by accuracy of facial recognition

  15. SLIDESHOW EXAMPLE: STUDY TASK

  16. Attractiveness?

  17. Age?

  18. Gender?

  19. Job?

  20. Slideshow Example: Recognition Task

  21. DATA COLLECTION Study Task Recorded subject’s responses to questions Recognition Task Recorded if the subject answered yes or no

  22. STUDY TASK DATA SHEET

  23. RECOGNITION TASK DATA SHEET

  24. RESULTS Group Results (Experimental & Control) Independent t-test Descriptives One-way ANOVA Post-hoc (Bonferroni)

  25. GROUP STATISTICS

  26. INDEPENDENT T-TEST

  27. DESCRIPTIVES

  28. ONE WAY ANOVA

  29. POST HOC

  30. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 1) Response time: 5 second time limit Subjects provided arbitrary responses May have focused more on the question than actual face Further studies: allow slightly more time for subjects’ responses

  31. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 2) Occupation Question: Was predicted to elicit deeper processing Answer didn’t require face processing Future studies: questions relying more on facial features (I.e ethnicity, cosmetic surgery)

  32. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 3) Facial Images: Atypical facial images compared to participants and people within the participants’ environment Non significant results maybe due to quality of faces Faces presented in grey-scale : require deeper processing Future studies: Use of coloured images is more realistic Use more updated faces similar to those within participants’ social environment

  33. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 4) Number of Images: Study task: 32 faces Recognition task: 60 faces Future studies: More faces in study and recognition tasks Increase power

  34. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 5) Control Group: Smaller than experimental group Future studies: Larger number of subjects in control group size = increase power Within-subjects control group: Have some pictures without any questions in the slideshow

  35. Implications • If significant: • Faces and words are processed similarly • Improve peoples ability to remember new acquaintances • Eyewitness testimony

  36. CONNECTIONS TO PREVIOUS RESEARCH Verbalization and conceptualization of faces lead to better facial recognition Itoh, 2005; Bruce & Valentine, 1985 Improved memory when face is paired with question, and when the answers are generated Geghman & Multhaup, 2004 Levels of processing may have had an effect on facial recognition Craik, & Tulving, 1975

  37. Word memory vs. Facial memory Mechanisms by which words are processed may not be the same mechanisms employed in facial recognition Similar processing may be involved CONNECTIONS TO PREVIOUS RESEARCH

  38. FUTURE RESEARCH Intentional vs. Incidental Previous works show there is no difference in memory if the learning is incidental or intentional Craik, & Tulving, 1975 Examine if intentional or incidental learning has an effect on facial recognition

  39. FUTURE RESEARCH Facial images Examine the recognition of faces more typically seen in the subject’s environment Investigating recognition of faces of varying ethnicities Neuroimaging: fMRI Examine areas of activation between different questions Compare word processing to facial processing

More Related