Psya3 P - Bruce And Young’S Theory Of Face Recognition

Front 1

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO1 Key Factor 1
Overview & Structural encoding

Back 1

Is face recognition (FR) a 'specialised' process within the brain or is it similar to the way in which we recognise other objects?
B&Y's model is quite complex. It has 3 subsystems, all of which interact with the cognitive system.
Structural encoding is the start of the process. A face is encoded and translated into information about the features it includes expression-independent descriptions of the face - which links to the 'familar face' route and the view centred descriptions which links to the second route.

Front 2

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO1 Key Factor 2
Familiar Faces

Back 2

When recognising familiar faces we progress through the following processes in a series:
the Face Recognition Unit (FRU) contains information about all the faces we know, if there is a match it triggers the... Person Identity Node (PIN)which contains information about the person e.g. job, interests etc. Once we have established an identity the Name Retrieval Unit (NRU) supplies us with a name.

Front 3

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO1 Key Factor 3
Expression analysis and Facial speech analysis

Back 3

A second route is for faces to be analysed in terms of their emotional content (Expression Analysis) and in terms of their movements, especially the lips, which is Facial Speech Analysis.
Directed Visual Processing is another component where particular characteristics of the face are noticed, e.g. glasses.

Front 4

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO2 Criticsm 1
Research support 1

Back 4

B&Y's model is well supported by research.
Young (1985) 22 people were asked to keep a diary of the mistakes they made when recognising people over an 8 week period. They found Ps could recall personal information but not the name, but they never were able to recall the name without the personal information. This supports B&Y and the sequential nature of the PIN and the NRU.

Front 5

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO2 Criticsm 1
Research support 2

Back 5

Some case studies of Prosopagnosia also support. Van der Linden (1995) described the case of CB who could say whether a person was familiar or not, but was unable to give any personal information or name. This suggests damage only to the PIN and NRU which fits as they come after the FRU.

Front 6

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO2 Criticsm 2
Contradictory research

Back 6

Stanhope & Cohen found that their Ps could recall names without having any knowledge of Personal identity. This challenges the validity of B&Y's theory and might help to explain why it was updated in 1993 by Burton & Bruce to be more of a connectionist model rather than being a model of serially linked units. This second model may also be more valid as it more similar to the way in which the nervous system actually acts, in an interconnected way.

Front 7

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO2 Criticsm 3
Is B&Y's model relevant? YES

Back 7

B&Y's model is only relevant if the way in which we process faces is special and different to the way in which we process other objects such as 'types of car'.
It makes adaptive sense for FR to be a specialised function. Fantz (1961) found that 4 day old babies showed a preference for faces. This seemingly innate preference is adaptive as a newborn who can recognise its own species is more likely to receive appropriate care. Secondly, neurophysiological studies have indicated that there is a specific part of the brain, fusiform facial area (FFA), that is more active when recognising faces than when recognising other objects.

Front 8

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
AO2 Criticsm 4
Is B&Y's model relevant? NO

Back 8

However, Gauthier (2000) found the FFA was also found to be activated when 'experts' were asked to distinguish between different types of bird or car. Most individuals with Prosopagnosia have difficulty with recognising faces AND objects. Riddoch & Humphreys (1987) proposed that faces are just complex objects and as such require more skill, this might also explain why we have patients who have severe facial recognition problems and minimal object recognition but not vice versa. This research indicates the processes described in B&Y's theory may not be as specialised as first thought.

Front 9

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
IDA Criticism 1
Real World Applications

Back 9

Increasing our understanding of how humans recognise faces can be beneficial when creating technology that aims to recognise faces. B&Y's model might have specific relevance when designing computer software for developing identikit pictures or for security purposes. B&Y's theory can also help us explain why eyewitnesses make errors when trying to recognise a person in a line-up.

Front 10

Bruce and Young’s theory of face recognition
IDA Criticism 2
Ethnocentrism

Back 10

B&Y's theory may be culturally biased. Blais claims that Asians and Caucasians study faces differently. Asians study faces in a holistic fashion, while Caucasians break down faces into distinct parts.
As B&Y's theory is based on research just from samples with higher levels of Caucausians, the actual theory may not be valid explanation of face recognition around the world.