顔の部品検出に及ぼす全体情報の効果
14
0
0
全文
(2) . . . . . . . . . . . E#ects of configural information on the detection of parts of the face Mitsuo EC9D῍, Takahiro K>G>I6῍2, and Tsuneyuki A7:῍3 University of the Ryukyus῍, Iwate Prefectural University῍2, Tohoku University῍3. We investigated the e#ect of facial context on the detection of parts of the face to examine whether configural information was used in the early stage of face processing. Participants were presented with several types of stimuli: an intact face; a face in which one or more parts were masked; and only part of a face. They were asked to judge as quickly as possible whether the eyes (or the nose, or the mouth) were contained in the presented stimulus. Experiment 1 showed that the parts of a face were more quickly detected when they were presented in the context of faces than when they were presented alone. This facilitating e#ect of facial context was consistently and robustly observed for detection of the eyes in the subsequent experiments, but not for detection of the mouth. In Experiments 2, 3 and 4, the facilitating e#ect was independent of the distinctiveness, familiarity, and orientation of the faces. Experiment 5 showed that the context of houses did not facilitate the detection of windows, suggesting that configural information was used in the early stage of face processing, but not in the detection of other basic-level objects. Key words : face processing, face detection, configural information, basic-level object recognition. P3 p fg%23 NAG *Q|. ῑ῍ῌΐῐ . s ?3 N%|s?. !"#$%&'()*+ . , '. -./( '-.0123 45(. 6 '. I?3 ,fg%23 |s ?Ii )?|oH+I' (Valentine & Bruce, 1986a)L RQ3. 78-./9:;-.01)<= ')3 >?@A. p fg%2{ ??. B CADE?FGHAIJK&'L . !"-. Ii)?|oH+I'?3 ,fg%2. .(M 'N%OPHQ!"01%23 RS3 T. ? GHAI (Valentine & Endo, 1992)L oG. U)VWXYZ([\]^_`*Q abc3. |'fgc abc3 d 23. [\]^_`d )(e6 'fg abc3 ,fgd. ,fg%23 qrs:;fgjk)<=*+o. ?IGHQL h*+3 ifg(IQjk3 . Ii)oH+I' (Lewis & Edmonds, 2003)L. l"-.?mnoH'p fg/qrs:;fg(. . !"-.*+3 ' ¡. IQjk)2tA'uvw?xGH'i)?yo. [ ) I ¢ £ ¤ G M * Q 0 1 ? & 'L Nothdurft. H3 . (1993) / Kuehn & Jolicoeur (1994) 23 ¥¦§¨fg. !"-.z{Ws?|oHQL }~3. ,fg%23 |s (distinctiveness) ?. ©I+3 (ª«¬®3 ª«¬®)tA'9. p fg/qrs:;fg)tA' (| L A. / 3 [\]^_`(¯°[®]\ª)*Qjk 3 ±NA²
(3) ³´)oH'µ¶¡·®?¸¹. ῍ College of Law and Letters, University of the Ryukyus, 1 senbaru, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa, 903ῌ0213. 'º¢(M*+I'L hw3 ºG01% µ¶¡·®³´(»I¼ i)2%CA½QL **3 Hershler & Hochstein (2005) 23 (ª«. Copyright 2011. The Japanese Psychonomic Society. All rights reserved..
(4) ºs»t¼T½ TU³´ YM H,¬k. 131.
(5) . B
(6) 61C- %. . !"#. %9LC-B )y+ '.. $% & %'( ) *+ . B
(7) 6M- EF9tC-). ,
(8) - './'01. y1)& L9+ N. #2341)5#6#+ %47)18. OhO3#TPO)?. 9+ )%
(9) ,
(10). h- #TQ
(11) 6 (Rosch et. - %#:01). al., 1976)& ,?+ FMC-
(12) 9%L. ;1)& <+ 8=>
(13) 9+ . C-#2341)& LC-B . 9?+ @A B . 9+ FMR2S F+ TUH Vr)1. C1))D41)& 3E+ . 234D41) Fpart-based processing; +.
(14) 9+ D4 . $!. zS'H (Biederman, 1987)& 4+ . FGH #"I JK(J#$ . B 9+ TUhWBTUhXU )0. %#L?84#+ %?G#M
(15) 6J9. YMH,#w2Z¡k %#&8J01). & D4)& J+ 8=>
(16) 9%? NO. (Maurer, Le Grand, & Mondloch, 2002)& Rhodes,. G#
(17) 6%P 1)& ,?+. Brake, & Atkinson (1993) 9+ C-B 9
(18) . . LFMC-zS'#2. Q"R S'T (2U3VW841. 341)% ¢1)#+ %[U &8. )& %4)1+ Langton, Law, Burton, & Schwein-. J£¤9D41))& B 9+ ¥#. berger (2008) 9+ )1@X*YA. \ ¦!
(19) E] §¨ 10 ^©_wx. +Z# [ %,\1)& 89+ . %
(20) `RD4ª`B
(21) 6D4 (Carey. D4 6 7,4]4!J8^_". & Diamond, 1994)& %'(tC-~. %=>`ab & ,c+ -U.. ǻ`#+ ,B
(22) 6LC-T. 1de/fdg)/f0+ 1/f. M8JaT8 5#6&.
(23) G 2 h3i& ,j. ,%
(24) + K
(25) 9+ TU) bc. k+ -U.1#dg41)/f4#G. ¬kd+ C-B #zS'. #5A6l0& %49+ # . '012341)JK(Jd& T+ . 9-U.
(26) 6TJJ38m=>`abA+Z. #zS''012341)8+. % 1)&. g+ Bindemann, Burton,. bc9TU®eW)#+ C-. Hooge, Jenkins, & de Haan (2005) 9+ #
(27) . B YM S'#U38+ bc9TU. '.TA7l8n+ o9#6)% &. fg ¬kn7%hD4& => 1
(28) 9+ ij¯. 89+ !p D4q:
(29) go ;r F<H . ) bc¬k/f01. non-go ;r F=H + go ;r# D4 + s>. d& => 2 J8 4
(30) 9+ => 1
(31) k84TU. D4?@AtB#uvKE8
(32) 6. ) YMH,¬k7)1°±d . J#$ %=>`ab & ,c+ q. ?+ ²lJ8CmB ®³´ %# D4. wx1
(33) wx1 . 1) µ+ ¶m+ no¬k#%¬k [·. '.5A go ;r) y#6l% . D®³´ JK(Jd& => 5
(34) 9TU. & ,
(35) =>z{Q|}~)1T+ ) . ) YMH,¬k#5¬kJ+ ,4. A|!#"I %# D41) (Ro, Russell,. TFMp84¬kJ¸TU). & Lavie, 2001; Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006)&. bc¬k3i %'01d&. %'(+ C-B T D4 1O19)#+ B &8J .D9+. ῍. ῌ. 1. EFB GH#$B 3i IJ)W. ij¯KTUYMbc#®³. & ,%
(36) + K
(37) 9+ .=>1+ . ´ JK(Jd ?+ ij¯2 . C-#K'(H,)12341)J. h+ %48#qr
(38) D4/f+ bcN. 7)1&8J %& C-B (E+. D4/f+ I¹YbcN D4/f.
(39) yz{.|}. 132. ~ 29 . ~2. Figure 1. Examples of the stimuli used in Experiment 1. Note. Names of the stimulus types indicate facial parts included in them: Exeyes; Mxmouth; Ox outline, in which hair and eyebrows were included; ALLxwhole face..
(40)
(41) . . EM, MN, EO, NO, MO, ENM, ENO, EMO, NMOC UV 3W(MN) HIC ALL 14 XYC Z [. . . 48 . !".
(42) . 80 #$%&'()*. +,. -./01 (Adobe: Photoshop ver5.0) (2 345( 67 8 9&': !";. *<3=>. ?< 45@AB:C DEC FEC GE ) HIC E, N, MC DC FC GC JK L(MN OP Q R 2 ST:C 3 S(MN) HIC EN,. 10 QS67 (Figure 1) \] 140 45. :C. UV3^
(43) _`aR9W(2 8 9OPC 28 (14b2) :cdef. C gh 112 (14b8) :ief. 2 45j :C W(kl )C 3.2b1 cmC mnW( U_JK(MT
(44) ) C 3.2b3.2 cmC JK(MN)o 5b7 cm ?<
(45) pC mnW( U_45 qSR :C r&'R9sW(tuU_vw?<.
(46) ·$¸¹%¸º¥ »GH a'¼½&¢. 133.
(47) . lT6(C UVW8XST vDEstq.
(48) . c c]^H. 3.2 1 cm . . Table 1 vGHQR 12 GH3. i lT. !"# $%& (Adobe: Photoshop ver5.0) '(. DEst c]^Tn . %)*+ ,-./0 1234 5617
(49) . c]^ x12GHQRST 1 u ANOVA . '(89 :'(#; . BCT: 2GHQR5¡¢ ,DE+£0. << =>?@A BC DEF;. 3 ¤T6C ,GHQR¥. GH3 !IJKL M. .0001; GHQR¥ F(7, 105)¦27.52, p§.0001;
(50) . N 1 cm F; 6OP QRST . GHQR¥ F(7, 105)¦4.53, p§.0050 QRST DEs. UVW8XYZ[ 60 cm 5\C DE. F(7, 105)¦5.06, p§. t^l ¨ Ryan (p§.05) OC2BCT:. ]^_` abc]^d e$f. GHQR 12 ©. g (Apple: Quadra 650) T hUV $%& (Cedrus:. EO, ENO, EMO, ENM, ALL ªcOz ¤ «o. SuperLab ver1.5.9) 1. 6C GHQR 12 NO, ENO, NMO ª. ῏ῐῌ. QR ?iDE ,M . c3. ªc3. ¬DEstOz ¤ «o6C
(51) G.
(52) 0 3\(jP(k2 lcmn6. H 12 MO ªc3 NM, ENM, ALL ª. opoq4 r:T5\C GHst U. cOz ¤ «o6C. VW8X^uT2 vst 16 wxUVW8. (C. Xyz2. ¬st^ ¤ 6. 3 xGHQR ®¯ 3 °!DEst . UVW8X 28 {B|} 112 UV{B BC v{BDE~ !I JK3. 6 GH©. st "#±. st (ENM) st (ALL) 12 GHQR. 500 ms ^?i c mnnL . ^c]^ ¨ :i x12 2 u ,3 ,G. ?imn5r:T OC2B i. HQR0 3 ,DEst00 ANOVA BC 2 x. DE UVW8Xc} . ¡¢T² ¤T6C ,GHQR¥ F(2, 45)¦14.35,. {B^g+n* 2 s 5\C {B UV. p§.0001; DEst¥ F(2, 90)¦15.65, p§.00010 ³´. W8XST g . µ. ¤5 6(C. i¶i¡¢ x12. Ryan (p§.05) OC2st^5l ¨BCT. ῎῍ n 5 3NC5 . : GHQR^5 2 ¤3\z
(53) . Table 1 Mean reaction times (RT, in ms), SDs (in parentheses), and error rates to detect each facial part for each stimulus type in Experiment 1. Part to be detected Eyes RT Error rate Nose RT Error rate Mouth RT Error rate. Stimulus type E 442 (37) .03. ALL 404 (35) .02. ENM 395 (44) .02. EN 422 (49) .02. EM 423 (45) .02. EO 415 (37) .02. ENO 413 (40) .00. EMO 410 (44) .00. N 544 (86) .03. ALL 528 (66) .01. ENM 503 (57) .02. EN 537 (78) .00. NM 535 (53) .01. NO 640 (79) .04. ENO 645 (90) .07. NMO 650 (87) .08. M 487 (68) .02. ALL 459 (99) .01. ENM 448 (58) .02. EM 477 (82) .05. NM 458 (80) .00. MO 513 (66) .13. EMO 490 (66) .05. NMO 479 (73) .03. Note. Names of the stimulus types indicate facial parts included in them: E¦eyes; N¦nose; M¦mouth; O¦ outline, in which hair and eyebrows were included; ALL¦whole face..
(54) ¹º»B©uv. 134. P 29 ¼. P2½.
(55) . 67 F AB ,|8()8k ef. . `a P AB)} WF~#1J.
(56) . ()5#Q$) AF @'.h\=". !"#. $
(57) % &$
(58) . . AB z5, _ () 6 i1 #$) AB. . ' ()*+,() - . () ,
(59) ' /$' 01 23
(60) # ' 4 ,0()# 5 678 5 ,91 78
(61) 8 ' :. !". #$ ' ; < =",>?@ # AB C .#5 %BDB 5E#7
(62) # ' # &. -FB$
(63). 1 1$ F #.8 G
(64) 8! 20. J %B 9() P ,$)SI:I: ;()5 2t' 1< = T
(65) Gnopqrs' 8:; () >. _?5#51J. 6,01 7K=" #$ 5#LMN# #$ F$
(66) 1
(67) J #.8 ; ) <=". -FB #. O P. %!",01J6)# 3 ? 5$1IQ$)%R,&1J. . (ST #'U6 AB) V($WX EO, NO, MOY @8
(68) 8 :. !"#$ <=". -F. B #.5@ 28(I $
(69) @BF!" ()'= "ZAG%R (ST
(70) JQ$)[)\ ,]1J. ) ^_`a8@,b#. 1 cT*T,d
(71) ef`a+FB () ; <=" g, F-FBJ. )'.h\=" (face su-. ) (Mer-. ) %B8. ; <=" +FB !"#$
(72) ' ' ; < $=", (@# '@ P$' 8 B W
(73) J. m@3A . )[)\,]() `a 2. F 4 @ij ?. J1I() - '. &\G-\ CD E @ij *+, ( P 1 . . ms F 40 ms "H :I$
(74) AF 5 ,91J
(75) # . @# ABJ. melstein, Banks, & Prinzmetal, 1979) ef`a. . 2. P ' 5G-\:;5 J4 DX I DXG(. F&\' \ . &\' .h . @#G-\:; :. @# ABJ. ¡ ) (Light,. Kayar-Stuart, & Hollander, 1979; Valentine & Bruce, 1986ab) C '55&\="%R. ¢G1 &\' F&\' 2t' #1J:I5AB)@# ABJ. ) (Valentine. & Bruce, 1986a) `a 2 #. £H, ¤
(76) ¥ `a 1 AB ' ¦). ; <=" '&\ *+,( P 1 . . §¨I©ª 36 J `a «¬1 .
(77) . ~ &\'#F&\',|. 8() - `a«¬ #
(78) JK-®L§ 25. periority e#ect) #Q$)ijk)#lO) '.. J~?¯ 50 J'°± VM²Y ?. h\="# AB ' m/ %. /N³ 28 J &\´H F 7 A NO(. B
(79) AB G ' 01,nopqr. ) Pµ- &\®¶6DXG(A,8#. s' AB 2t' . 1 ,D I. AB . P (Homa, Haver, & Sch-. () P ·,d
(80) %BF!",8# L§ 9. wartz, 1976; Gyoba, Arimura, & Maruyama, 1980;. J~?&\'#F&\',|81 %B. Davido#, 1986) @="uv #. )5. DB&\4 &\' L\¸ 4.75 §. w31 _ 4Oxyz5 {. \¸ 4.48 F&\' L\¸ 3.03 §\¸ 2.78 #. @#,. FBJ. J `a«¬#. ' 7 ,DXG(. '#1JNO.
(81) ¶·¸¹º¸»E¥ 2EF!o¼RS½²³. 135. Table 2 Mean reaction times (in ms), SDs (in parentheses), and error rates to detect each facial part for each stimulus type as a function of distinctiveness in Experiment 2. Part to be detected Eyes Typical Distinctive Mouth Typical Distinctive. Stimulus type. RT Error rate RT Error rate. E 462 (86) .06 469 (97) .05. ALL 433 (96) .02 436 (89) .01. EO 481 (118) .01 481 (87) .04. RT Error rate RT Error rate. M 489 (72) .03 494 (59) .01. ALL 495 (59) .05 479 (63) .00. MO 540 (57) .07 543 (58) .04. Note. Names of the stimulus types indicate facial parts included in them: E eyes; Mmouth; Ooutline, in which hair and eyebrows were included; ALL whole face. 2 ANOVA 2
(82) 2
(83)
(84) (F (1, 32) 95.43, p.0001) . !"#$ ῌ%&'(. )*+!,- 3 ./01 6 .2 . 3(. 4 ῌ%&'(5&'(6787 . ῎῍ C RS@ 3@ ^ 4f :;" Z!X JK ststuv34 673^4. 3. Table 2 ! X|}!Y$ jEF. 9!:; 1 <=>?@A BC D. ¡¢4 JKstuv3
(85) J. EFGHI JK ABCDLM N3O. KZ! stuv!0Y$ 3 2 |}. P 3OP EFQLMI JK 2RS3OP . 2
(86) 3 JK ANOVA 3'. RSI JK 5 0TUV 3)*4. JK |}. 4$ WC ῌ%&'( 30 (65) 5&'. £¤ JK¥ F(2, 68)31.94, p.0001; . ( 180 (365) 5&'( C X . |}¥ F(1, 34)3.65, .05p.10
(87) C. TUV!0Y$
(88) JKZ! 6 3OP 60 /. f ¦§)(C|} JK. 0 3 [\]!^_`7 6a X[\]!C . (F(2, 68)3.97, p.05) ¦§)(!. bcXEF d! 1 e4fOB7Ygh!4. ¨4$G©ª3:«4 |}G. . ©CRSI EFQLMI JK@. ij` I >? klmn op . RSI ¥ F(1, 102)4.27, p.05; EFQLM¥ F(1,. I qr stuv1w!(YxyzC:; 1 . 102)5.34, p.05 Y/79A>!¬. <=@{ ῑῒῌ. |}C I `7 !A BC D. {~fhf3~@{ |}JKC. f JKG©C|}!Y$ A¥ F(2, 68)13.31, p.0001; D¥ F(2, 68) 21.86, p.0001 Ryan ? (p.05) !g~®¯. :;" v4$ XJK! 18 ./0:;. A|}@CRSI JKEFGHI E. " 3_$ 6787C`! 3 !^_`. FQLMI JKg!¬° 2 J. 7 5&'( 3 [\] hY/7fI `. Kv!C f D|}@CEFQL. 7 :;" C 30 &'ῌ%&' 60 &'. MI JK6JKg!±° R. 5&'3' 6jC:; 1 <=@{. SI EFGHI JKv!C f. . ῏ῐ 5:;@C EF!~RS²³´µ.
(89) ¹º»Gde. 136.
(90) . H 29 ¼. H2½. . 1 !"#$. . 0C 36 16 . %% &'()*+,-..
(91) . 23,1W4^1R . /"0 . 1 10 )21 345. OP. OPQ-,R& 5 6U5. 6 780%1 345!"9. 5 25 1 $ 100 7 A u,&$0. . 1 10 :; <
(92) =. 25 18*Qu,$U55 7 9. >1?
(93) =>@AB!"9@ -. 8*)] -,&$0# 28 1. ./"6CD6 78 . 8Q$ 7 98*)] . ./"0CD9 . 10=>E9F1 10GH=>I. 8*:0 . 2 ;1[ u,. 456J9:@ =>E1. $0U55u,!<$ 1 7 . K)LM6N059 . 2 10. h())] U54!" ?. OPQ 1 R 1 R
(94) L50GH=>I. u,8*=6 u,& 1 u,&. . J96 . OPQ*+0D6. -,&6!<96U55 12. STGH=>45:@K)L. $ 48 7 > u,&u,?S8*. M65 U3 78 . !"6. =0 6 6.99 6.93 9 ?S8*. V WXYZ6[\ ]] 1. =0 u,&10 6 4.38 4.29 9@ -,&. !"4 &)*+,-./"0. 10 6 4.34 4.28 9 $ 2. )2^U_L6J9@ `9F?. . ANOVA 2 u,2 ]\ . :0X 345ab1[c. /" ?A109 ]54GH. . ? . . 1 ;:1% 0 . de1[ $0 *. %GH
(95) => 0 < @. +,-./"6 45:?. n nGH ; <
(96) => &*+ . /"0 345 *+,-. nGH *+
(97) => 5 $GH . ./" 0X 1^9 fg. 6 GH0 240 (485) 9 . & 10 &6h&@. GH0 TGH$u,=>I. BF& L5]6L5 6. 8 GH 6A n 80 $ 3 ¡¢ £. &'()*+,/"0& . L5 U¤ T ¡¢0GHR"T6GH. i. ) jk!0J9k! Y]. $ 1 8 59 L4B¥G. 6lL5 & 0&Um"+j#. Hu,&-,&U55 6 7 6A $. @n\$%&'o ())1[. n A U5 ?TGH 4 $ 20. @ @N9&()6p3451[ U. B¥GH . 3 & jk!&*k!?q4r1YL5. GH0^L GH
(98) : ¦§¨C '©GH. c?59 s &.
(99) Mª «xE¬D0 . '()*+,/"0R"*k!0+9ab1. ;1[. [tc45. . . . 1. 0
(100) L5GH 0 6. [ ())]1[ =>0 . 3. . u,() )9vw
(101) L5&6u,& -,&())10u,&()6-,. OPQE. T=> 18 1 $ £@E. U55®0L4 3 ® £L5 3 ¡¢GHw 56
(102) L5 . O. &@().)xE6/]6L5. PQ0 20 B¥¯ 80 . (Valentine & Bruce, 1986a) &yz{|}. Um°±^0 . ~& 10u, 69]6L5 (Valentine & Bruce, 1986a) . 3 10 &. )*+,-./"u,6 ) . 1 ;1[. ²{³F0 *+1 3´µ¶·1 !" ¸ b9 OPQITGH=>W.
(103) ¸¹º¸»#B ~#$ ¼½. QRqjk><. 137. Table 3 Mean reaction times (RT, in ms), SDs (in parentheses), and error rates to detect each facial part for each stimulus type as a function of familiarity in Experiment 3. Part to be detected Eyes Familiar Unfamiliar Mouth Familiar Unfamiliar. Stimulus type. RT Error rate RT Error rate. E 470 (71) .06 464 (60) .04. ALL 435 (59) .01 446 (64) .00. EO 470 (68) .04 472 (75) .05. RT Error rate RT Error rate. M 495 (91) .01 507 (89) .01. ALL 501 (98) .01 506 (108) .01. MO 551 (85) .01 545 (93) .03. Note. Names of the stimulus types indicate facial parts included in them: EC eyes; MCmouth; OCoutline, in which hair and eyebrows were included; ALLC whole face.
(104)
(105). FvWiwx . Table 3 !"#$%&. %n yz]{/01|} VE /0~. ^QRjklm><. '
(106) ()*+,-. /01*+. Y% 0~]A|}. ^% %3o. 23 4 3 5 62 6 782. ^
(107) %: Oh 2 i #$ . 6/01783 6()*+77 ANOVA 9:;< . ^QRjklm><iNwEK
(108)
(109) @ . ()*+=><%?@A 6 B F(1,. %3o. 34)C5.38, pD.05; ()*+B F(2, 68)C18.45, pD.00017. . /01=><E?@@F: GHIE 8()*+J%?@: (F(2, 68)C6.14, pD. ~ S3. . 4. ^]: ~uE
(110) b. .01) GHIK
(111) LM=><N OP
(112) ;. @^%0 ^ Ef.. < LM=><EQRS3#$TUS3. ]AX~VpA ~u1K. *+V?@A 6QRS3B F(1, 102)C5.86, pD.05;. Xo ^ (Diamond & Carey, 1986) o. #$TUB F(1, 102)C8.79, pD.017 WX. S3]: #$Ku@QR. Y%?ZF: ()*+LM=><E. jk%@^%3o ^ 6. ?@: 6B F(2, 68)C6.86, pD. 19957 OhVE #$ . .01; [B F(2, 68)C17.74, pD.00017 Ryan \ (pD.05). lm><% S3]: rs ^F{F . ]^_`;< VEQRS3*+%. :
(113) . #$LaS3#$TUS3*+]A?Zb@: % cd 2 *+E?e%@F: [ VE#$TUS3*+%f*+]A? gb@:% QRS3#$LaS3*+E? e%@F:. . 36 ¡¢£ 6{¤ 10 %¥17 %O. h¦§
(114)
(115) . Oh¦§d: 0~¨©. 6ª«7 ¥¬ 24 W4 ® 48 ?
(116) . Oh 2 i #$ . ^QRjk]^. ()¨© XOh 1 i Y\V ^QRjklm>. J ¯E [J() 6#$LaS3*+7 ¯. <E VJn o#$TUS3. E[U 6° ±²7 ±²() 6#$TUS3*. *+;<XOh 2 i Vp: OhqV. +7 ~QR ±²() 6QRS3*+7 5 4³´. p:/01rs4 EtuV"W /01F. () Iµ
(117) ()¶·®E 240 (4885) @:.
(118) º»JK ¡. 138. D 29 ¼.
(119) 16 80 3 . D2½. ῏ῐ. !. :;< w QNj$-}p$. "
(120) #
(121) $ 1 %&. 6*>N'O+'wM. '()*+&. , -&. .&. 6 wQT51.
(122) . 12 / 0& !1-. 6.
(123) 4 2 20 , 34&. *+6st< w'QN?@$W . 5. 6 789 :; 1. -<=> 6 6?@AB CDE. N< M$$/)N-$0. *11U)>$(0 2)'> ! !st<1W st-E?@-)>. ?@ FGHI (Apple: PowerMac G3) -J. w QNj$-}p y. K:; GL (Cedrus: SuperLab ver1.5.9) . 6y 3)'> . . op (<.34 ¡¢6. ῑῒῌ. M 6. $=N'O+'. 55&. . 6}p- £)>N &'&. & !P EQNRS)NTUVUWX. )$ (<5&. YQ-<=> :;Z[\ 3 ] . . )O#4$6QNM¢~6. ^_ 3 +`'$6. . N !& .34*§¨7©ªQ. a-/. NM<=N.8M< #4$6QN.
(124) ]. 2 ] . W 6-. 6-& !bcI SdeIf. M-)QN-. }p ¤3M¥
(125) ¦. }p$«-$¬9. -> :;Z[\ ^_g 20 ^_ ,^. (Lewis & Edmonds, 2003). _ /. ¡<. 6 _> !!h"5 :;. 1 -<=>. ῎. }p$¯3N< ). (Ro & Friggel, 2007) w QNj$- }p1.3§¨4$6&N-°±. ῍. ieS# j$< 3klmn>< opq r-&)'> :;Z[\a-
(126) stW E%uE?@vw& !q r-& Table 4 $&x& st%uE?@ -ieS#6ysta-6Q E?@ 2 'z ANOVA 3 st{2 6y op st|}p~$(0< (F(2, 70)15.09, p.001) !!6st|}p3. (0 < )'> st@ ) Ryan (p.05) *>_>op .j$6st$*+ 6-, ~6st*E?@$(0V -$6. N. .:0;®. &'&\ 2 @. (0 )'>. N< (< ¡op-²³&N-±* + l´:; 2 ' 4 ¢ .w QN j$-}p6¦ ¥
(127) ¦ 16±)-$6 µr$j$-< $=>-. N#4. ¶&N< )-±N &'&) $ (<:;<µr.34=>? )}p$X3. )'>- µr$.=(. µr< )U$3²@3Nµr·A¦$ =N ¸:;< BC'QN ¹ w¢j$-}p$¶QN'O+ '.&. Table 4 Mean reaction times (RT, in ms), SDs (in parentheses), and error rates to detect eyes for each stimulus type as a function of orientation in Experiment 4. Stimulus type. Upright. RT Error rate. Inverted Error rate a). Isolated eyes. Whole face. Eyes and outlinea). 476 (68) .04 494 (77) .05. 453 (73) .01 457 (76) .01. 478 (80) .05 480 (71) .03. Hair and eyebrows were included in it.. 6. &$> .
(128) ¹Iº»Jº¼½. . . K . 139. BC C- * (Figure. 5. 2)+ 5$#
(129) .
(130)
(131) . #" A*. " K
(132) -z{| . . !
(133) ". '##}~ * # Z[\]^. #$%&'()' *+ . ,. _ * Z[\]^_ '##"}~ *. -. /0 1 234$
(134) 5 6 78. 6 qr *+ Z[\]^_. 9:;<=>?:5 . * # X2V) . @A':BC DEF G. /0X2V)@$$ . HI*J. n#
(135) qr *+.
(136) #$
(137) . (Tanaka & Farah, 1993)+ K?. W1cd 4
(138) 3 ,nI. ! *J L"M4$*#. R Y. *+. 6 18 qr *+. 4# NOP 2 $D *+ 1 $!
(139) *J QRS'T:UV.
(140). WX Y. D. QR %#$'()' *+ 2 $. Q. 3 ]
(141) @$$. QR Y. ?4@$$5 57. cm 5 45 cm 5 64 cm Fk*+ K? ! #?4 @$$ 3.21 cm R 5 20.5 cm Y. Q. 5 2.21.6 cm Fk*+ 5. ! BC Z[\]^_4`* Dab. $#?4 67D 8"M * ?.
(142) cd
(143) . -C -:V)9 *+. . .
(144) BC &9eF'()'. *+. $1 A* X 1 cm ". M4$*+ icj23;5 60 cm+ "M. . 5$A K? ! # :. 24 'fg )h 7 ' (G . ic *+.
(145) . icj k
(146) )*l. (m 5 'nI. QR +o 10 ,Y.
(147) qr *+ Y. K
(148) mGs. p. tqruvw. (FaceMaker ver0.7 (Free Software))
(149) qr *+ xp !" A* y" K
(150) -z{|. . '#!"}~ *. ! y .$/d*Z[\]^_. . 0D!. D1 Z[\]^_ '#!}~ * 6 qr *+ I
(151) An /0{|2 2 I# r-z 10 ]qr *+ @ G . <¡C= u¢] (Apple: iMac) £>fuvw (Cedrus: SuperLab Pro ver1.7.5) *+ . ¤? "M4$* ! A* # . F'()'@A5 Fk*+ ¤?ab QR! Y. ! # . icjC-¥
(152) x¦icj 8 'nI§T B
(153) *+ (¤?D 18 4¨ 60 (610) k*+ * k
(154) NO 10 ©C! A*# @$$ abªTD "M4$ *+ x "M C« <¡E K
(155) 1 Fk*+. . Y FEGHIV. ¬\F 4.8 ®:'k*+ 4# . )*J 2 I#3 4# #. K? "M4$*ab¬\F 4.2 5 $#¯G°& *±²H³_´ 72 3 ¤?3 ab8 icj : @)h 50 ³_ (69) ¬\ :'k*+ @* J ¬\FG° :'k*+ 5$A icjµ x ab¶<¡3·<¡C ¸ @$#G°& *+ Table 5 K? "M4$*ab3·<¡C ¬\F. Figure 2. Examples of the stimuli used in Experiment 5.. M+ <¡CI
(156) 2 -¥ ANOVA 3 ¤.
(157) µ¶·¸¹º. 140. » 29 ¼. »2½. Table 5 Mean reaction times (RT, in ms), SDs (in parentheses), and error rates to detect eyes or windowes for each stimulus type in Experiment 5. Part to be detected Eyes (Schematic) Eyes (Photograph). Windowes. Stimulus type. RT Error rate RT Error rate. Isolated eyes 437 (31) .04 438 (36) .05. Whole face 403 (44) .04 420 (43) .03. Scrambled face 450 (52) .11 448 (50) .06. RT Error rate. Isolated windowes 476 (60) .04. Whole house 486 (65) .00. Scrambled house 484 (55) .01. 3
(158) . pq rst
(159) u-. D*.A `.
(160) (F(2, 42)5.66, p.01) . a-.A vwx[V Uyz /{:5). ! "# $%&'(
(161) ). |1}-A ? ~ 89 *V F
(162) .. *+*. F(2, 21)3.19, .05p.10; F(2, 42)2.21,. |1-U
(163) C *V . .05p.10 $%& ,-./0 1 2. 2 WA.JK? 67d FV\]hi:. 3- 4 . 5D
(164) ,-.5 *:2 Fl . !/05 6789 !:). 2 89 *V 1 :5 . *+*
(165) )*+* F(2, 63)6.10, p.01;. ;<= WA.89 *.A `a ". F(2, 42)7.46, p.01 )@/05AB*. - vwx *V. : ;<=/05>? . C:5D
(166)
(167) /0 EA. 2 5 WA. . . Ryan (p.05) F
(168) .GHI
(169) 4 6. :5 . 789 :5>? . *5 ? . L . ?JK . FMC ND
(170) . PD
(171) >? . . !O:5. !:5 6789 . .AV. ῏῍ῌ῎.
(172) . ?^ A *Vd Vc:?. ῌ῎ . GUV67d \]. 5 Od :[V 9-. QRSO@ 2 E89 FMCTA4. . \]^_ *D
(173). GUV ?JK>? WXV Y WXVL . :HI- )4. !;<=$%&'(M !. F
(174) . ZA[
(175) >?:589 /0M . GUV. \]^_ * ?JKY:5/0 5 B 89 *V `a5^_ * D
(176) -D- 6789 :!OQRSO P[M >?"# JK? L GU VQRSOFM TA4
(177) -
(178) . Obc 5JK?:C67d FV ^_ * efD . \]. GUV67d. \]5 Y:5^_ *B ? g hijk :[VAl:mFl JK?FM>? nA o * 5 >?. . GUV? ¡- 2 1 :. 5 ?/{:89 *VFMC? ~ 8 9 * ) . NA9 * 4. 5 ?^¢£¤¥¦£§ F
(179) . y*V:567c§C,y
(180) .AV. 9-.AV 2 2 D 4 :5 jk 5 9P x ¨©x ª89`a " A9 * * «5 67d ¬ lr7 ®|1 `a "U9 *. AV -
(181) . r7,-.AV _ . WA.67d FV\]c¯° y. X:5A D
(182) 9Pxª 89`aD
(183) 5 ?! WA.9 *.AV4C±M . GUV67d. \]5?! Q² *V?^³´ FMC³´,-.AV 9UC.
(184) ·[¸¹\¸º» *
(185) ¼½
(186) . 141. 5
(187) . N 2O
(188)
(189) .
(190) . :; KL3O 4 .
(191) . 2 F bc&ijO -,EC. !"#
(192) $%. & '( )*+ , - ..
(193)
(194) <9 . 7 < 2 3=G1*
(195) >.
(196)
(197) 1. I>?, 1@2> ). /01 232 .
(198) ? 2> 3O C . 2 /
(199) 40 56
(200). P= A bc bc >. 7 8 %921 . ? ,O 7 1 . 3
(201) :;<. @IB
(202) ? 2> . = >/
(203)
(204) ? . -,O 232 1 bc >. @34-. AB ?C. / 52 (ENM)
(205) .
(206) 5
(207) <4 D. 5 bc bc >?. EC3 F *(GH . jN 2O bc >?. 2IJ, 1
(208) KLGMN> . , ?O
(209) 2> . 3O P= 8 Q RS* H. 3O P=)
(210)
(211) . 2 TU. >!V"TGUC # . ) C2 D 7
(212) G2. (Johnson & Morton, 1991; Valenza, Simion, Macchi. -P= AG . Cassia, & Umilta, 1996) U WXYZ. bc DE CF@2. [ $ ) \ G % ] ^ _ ` a Y (top-. 72 1 A 5G2. heavy) bc& #defghijO. G?w%H)w 9. > (Macchi Cassia, Turati, & Simion, 2004;. 7 1 D
(213) G-. Turati, Simion, Milani, & Umilta, 2002) '(k. ,O 232 2 A 5 . )* ?CWXYZ +l mi,2.
(214) 93O n 1 . (Farroni, Johnson, Menon,. / 5G2 (ENM) D . Zulian, Faraguna, & Csibra, 2005) n -. 33j0
(215) 2 . * 2 ! . / o 0 p (fusiform face. 5 )*GhZ#2bc . area, FFA) 1q r2345s #. D. (Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun, 1997) . 7
(216) 9. 0p Ctu6v 0p (rFFA) RS!V/o. 3O 2O
(217)
(218) . G ?C]^_`aY bc H?w<)xy. D 5 J+ = . D i I. > RS zw WXYZ {u |. I8 KLM 8 LFP¡. }MG~t 7 |WXYZ?w |W. KLM 2 * N¢bc 2. XYZ?w<)xy fMRI ?O. GO G,£ P¤ ?C. (Caldra & Seghier, 2009; Caldra, Se-. Q¥G% R¦§¡ B¨©y. ghier, Rossion, Lazeyras, Michel, & Hauert, 2006) . SªQ G~F « M* . 8 bc& %2. T¬ &G~F 7 1 N¢bc 2UV. *(5s2 *WXYZ /oG =. O 72 *$W )F3 &. = 7 bc& 0. 1 3 7 &<. J 2ijO 2O *. ®¯°±Y 5*+ &, . ( IJ,w 7 1
(219) *. X=² Yin (1969) ³´µ L. (3 9> 3O P=?. :; >YU¶«?w&*Z2. C *WXYZ /oG =. G2 Z2:; *&% . bc& Ct ]^_`aY & :;. , G+32 n Tanaka & Farah. KLGMN 7 < +l m {u | M. (1993) * ´µ
(220) J, .
(221) z{±"$TU. 142.
(222) (complete over part probe advantage)
(223) . !". #$%&' ()*++',- 2 ,+ .+/0*12345 67 8)9:;<++ '78) => 9? @ +AB',- Donnelly & Davido# (1999) CDB7E-F: ;
(224) C : GHIJ'78)KL++
(225) MHNO P
(226) Q8)--;- 0* RS+TU'VWXY Z[ \)+] +45+
(227) M-+ ^_`abc defg^_ hi+j=kl;++(+mn
(228) M'VW bl: ophi+qrsmn
(229) M+tuv -\wl x- R S+DB cy;z{|}Q+~G `' *)v +9?' '*)v+0 ();j=k+mn
(230) M ^_`a+~G '`'*)v+0 l R& t+KL+z * j=k+mn`^_`a+KL -+v0?0l? (+ j=k+mn
(231) M- 'l Ellis, 1986; 1987 8*' ' ¡¢£gH'¤T URS *)#¥+¤¦',-;R&yl? RS+TUDB#+§J '¨© ¤ --+ ' 9¡+ ª; +9?«¬y+ ¨© '9x-=8)-. l . ῌ῏῎῍ Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115ῌ147. Bindemann, M., Burton, A. M., Hooge, I, T. C., Jenkins, R., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2005). Faces retain attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1048ῌ 1053. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253ῌ274. Caldara, R., & Seghier, M. L. (2009). The fusiform face area responds automatically to statistical regulari-. » 29 ¼. »2½. ties optimal for face categorization. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 1615ῌ1625. Caldara, R., Seghier, M. L., Rossion, B., Lazeyras, F., Michel, C., & Hauert, C. A. (2006). The fusiform face area is tuned for curvilinear patterns with more high-contrasted elements in the upper part. Neuroimage, 31, 313ῌ319. Davido#, J. B. (1986). The mental representation of faces: Spatial and temporal factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 391ῌ400. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An e#ect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107ῌ117. Donnelly, N., & Davido#, J. (1999). The mental representations of faces and houses: Issues concerning parts and wholes. Visual Cognition, 6, 319ῌ343. Ellis, H. D. (1986). Introduction: Processes underlying face recognition. In R. Bruyer (Ed.), The neuropsychology of face perception and facial expression, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1ῌ27. ®¯ (1995). °!+ ±"$#$ 38, 539ῌ 562. ®¯²%³´ (1987). µ¶&s#· ' ¤TU '¸¹JV$º 10, 21ῌ30. Farroni, T., Johnson, M. H., Menon, E., Zulian, L., Faraguna, D., & Csibra, G. (2005). Newborns’ preference for face-relevant stimuli: E#ects of contrast polarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 17245ῌ17250. Gyoba, J., Arimura, M., & Maruyama, K. (1980). Visual identification of line segments embedded in human face patterns. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 39, 113ῌ120. Hershler, O., & Hochstein, S. (2005). At first sights: A high-level pop out e#ect for faces. Vision Research, 45, 1707ῌ1724. Homa, D., Haver, B., & Schwartz, T. (1976). Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory & Cognition, 4, 176ῌ 185. Johnson, M. H., & Morton, J. (1991). Biology and cognitive development: The case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302ῌ4311. Kuehn, S. M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). Impact of quality of the image, orientation, and similarity of the stimuli on visual search for faces. Perception, 23, 95ῌ122. Langton, S. R. H., Law, A. S., Burton, A. M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2008). Attention capture by faces. Cognition, 107, 330ῌ342. Lewis, M. B., & Edmonds, A. J. (2003). Face detection:.
(232)
(233) Mapping human performance. Perception, 32, 903῍ 920. Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., & Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 212῍228. Macchi Cassia, V., Turati, C., & Simion, F. (2004). Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns’ face preference? Psychological Science, 15, 379῍383. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255῍260. Mermelstein, R., Banks, W., & Prinzmetal, W. (1979). Figural goodness e#ects in perception and memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 472῍480. Nothdurft, H. C. (1993). Faces and facial expressions do not pop out. Perception, 22, 1287῍1298. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What s lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25῍57. Ro, T., & Friggel, A. (2007). Attentional biases for faces and body parts. Visual Cognition, 15, 322῍ 348. Ro, T., Russell, C., & Lavie, N. (2001). A detection advantage in the flicker paradigm. Psychological Science, 12, 94῍99. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boys-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural. 143. categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382῍439. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225῍245. Theeuwes, J., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2006). Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 13, 657῍665. Turati, C., Simion, F., Milani, I., & Umilta, C. (2002). Newborns’ preference for faces: What is crucial? Developmental Psychology, 38, 875῍882. Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1986a). The e#ects of distinctiveness in recognising and classifying faces. Perception, 15, 525῍536. Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1986b). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 300῍305. Valentine, T., & Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing: The e#ects of race and distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 671῍703. Valenza, E., Simion, F., Cassia, V. M., & Umilta, C. (1996). Face preference at birth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 892῍903. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141῍145. ῌ2010.9.8 2011.1.25 ῌ.
(234)
図
関連したドキュメント
By the algorithm in [1] for drawing framed link descriptions of branched covers of Seifert surfaces, a half circle should be drawn in each 1–handle, and then these eight half
Answering a question of de la Harpe and Bridson in the Kourovka Notebook, we build the explicit embeddings of the additive group of rational numbers Q in a finitely generated group
Then it follows immediately from a suitable version of “Hensel’s Lemma” [cf., e.g., the argument of [4], Lemma 2.1] that S may be obtained, as the notation suggests, as the m A
In our previous paper [Ban1], we explicitly calculated the p-adic polylogarithm sheaf on the projective line minus three points, and calculated its specializa- tions to the d-th
We will give a different proof of a slightly weaker result, and then prove Theorem 7.3 below, which sharpens both results considerably; in both cases f denotes the canonical
Our method of proof can also be used to recover the rational homotopy of L K(2) S 0 as well as the chromatic splitting conjecture at primes p > 3 [16]; we only need to use the
Classical definitions of locally complete intersection (l.c.i.) homomor- phisms of commutative rings are limited to maps that are essentially of finite type, or flat.. The
Yin, “Global existence and blow-up phenomena for an integrable two-component Camassa-Holm shallow water system,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol.. Yin, “Global weak
