We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Check Writers' Offers

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and Get Writers' Offers

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Outline and evaluate Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition Essay

Paper type: Outline Pages: 3 (685 words)

Views: 170

The face acknowledgment design developed by Bruce and Young has 8 key parts and it recommends how we process familiar and unfamiliar faces, including facial expressions. The diagram below demonstrate how these parts are adjoined. Structural encoding is where facial functions and expressions are encoded. This info is translated at the very same time, down 2 various pathways, to various systems. One being expression analysis, where the emotion of the person is revealed by facial features.

By utilizing facial speech analysis we can process acoustic details.

This was shown by McGurk (1976) who produced two video clips, one with lip movements indicating ‘Ba’ and other suggesting ‘Fa’.

Both clips had the sound ‘Ba’ played over the clip. However, individuals heard 2 different sounds, one heard ‘Fa’ the other ‘Bachelor’s degree’. This suggests that visual and auditory information work as one. Other units include Face Recognition Units (FRUs) and Individual Identity Nodes (PINs) where our previous understanding of faces is stored. The cognitive system consists of all extra info, for example it takes into consideration your surroundings, and who you are likely to see there.

fMRI scans done by Kanwisher et al. (1997) revealed that the fusiform gyrus in the brain was more active in face acknowledgment than item recognition, this suggests and supports the idea that face acknowledgment includes a different processing system. This model recommends that we process familiar and unknown faces in a different way. That we process familiar faces using; structural encoding, FRUs, PINs and Call Generation. Nevertheless, we utilize structural encoding, expression analysis, facial speech analysis and direct visual processing to procedure unfamiliar faces.

However, there is evidence by Young et al. suggesting that the idea of double association is poor. He studied 34 brain damaged men, finding there was only weak evidence for any difference between recognising familiar and unfamiliar faces. An issue with this study and the model itself, is the use of brain damaged patients to prove it works. This is because there is only a small sample size so it is hard to generalise to the wider population. It is also unclear if it is the brain injury itself that causes the result and if it is
the same for healthy people.

There was a study done by Young, Hay, and Ellis (1985) that uses people with no medical issues. They asked people to keep a diary record of problems they experienced in face recognition. They found people never reported putting a name to a face while knowing nothing else about that person. This supports the model as it suggests that we cannot think of a person’s name unless we know other contextual information about them.

Prosopagnosia is a condition where a person cannot recognise familiar faces, but only the features, not the whole face. The condition contradicts the model as it suggests that the process are most likely not separate. As most patients had severe problems with facial expression as well as facial identity, this suggests they are processed separately.

The model can also be seen as reductionist, as it only gives a vague description of what the cognitive system does. However, there is research that does support the concept that there are two are separate paths for processing face recognition and facial expression. One being Humphreys, Avidan, and Behrmann (2007) who studied three participants with developmental prosopagnosia. All three had poor ability to recognise faces, but their ability to recognise facial expressions was similar to that of healthy individuals.

A study that suggests that units of face recognition are separate is Bruyer et al. (1983). Who investigated a patient unable to recognise familiar faces, but who could understand their facial expressions, which implies that facial expression analysis and name generation is separately processed. This supports Bruce and Young’s idea of separate units. Further support for the idea of separate components of face recognition was shown by Campbell et al. (1986). They found a prosopagnosic who could not recognise familiar faces or identify their facial expressions, however they could perform speech analysis. This study suggested that facial speech analysis is a separate unit of face recognition.

Cite this page

Outline and evaluate Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition. (2016, May 10). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/outline-and-evaluate-bruce-and-youngs-theory-of-face-recognition-essay

How to Avoid Plagiarism
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Get help from professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Not Finding What You Need?

Search for essay samples now

image

Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!