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

The sheath cognition beat developed by Bruce and Young has octonary key parts and it suggests how we regale acquainted(predicate) and un known faces, including seventh cranial nerve founts. The diagram below shows how these parts argon interconnected. Structural encryption is where seventh cranial nerve features and expressions be encoded. This information is translated at the same time, down two various pathways, to various units. One being expression depth psychology, where the emotional state of the individual is shown by facial features.By using facial speech analysis we can transition auditory information. This was shown by McGurk (1976) who created two television set clips, one with lip movements indicating Ba and an new(prenominal)(prenominal) indicating Fa.Both clips had the sound Ba play over the clip. However, participants heard two disparate sounds, one heard Fa the other Ba. This suggests that visual and auditory information ensample as one. Other unit s include human face Recognition Units (FRUs) and Person Identity Nodes (PINs) where our antecedent knowledge of faces is stored. The cognitive constitution contains either additional information, for example it takes into account your surroundings, and who you are promising to see there.fMRI scans through with(p) by Kanwisher et al. (1997) showed that the fusiform gyrus in the consciousness was more active in face recognition than object recognition, this suggests and supports the judgment that face recognition involves a furcate processing mechanism. This model suggests that we process familiar and unfamiliar faces differently. That we process familiar faces using geomorphological encoding, FRUs, PINs and Name Generation. However, we use structural encoding, expression analysis, facial speech analysis and direct visual processing to process unfamiliar faces.However, there is evidence by Young et al. suggesting that the thinking of double experience is poor. He field of study 34 outlook damaged men, finding there was unaccompanied weak evidence for any end between recognising familiar and unfamiliar faces. An provide with this study and the model itself, is the use of brain damaged patients to prove it works. This is because there is and a small sample size so it is hard to generalise to the wider population. It is as intumesce unclear if it is the brain injury itself that causes the declaration and if it isthe same for healthy mess.There was a study done by Young, Hay, and Ellis (1985) that uses hoi polloi with no medical issues. They asked people to reenforcement a diary record of problems they go through in face recognition. They found people never reported putting a name to a face man knowing nonhing else about that person. This supports the model as it suggests that we cannot think of a persons name unless we know other contextual information about them.Prosopagnosia is a condition where a person cannot grapple familiar face s, besides 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 solemn problems with facial expression as well as facial identity, this suggests they are neat 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 supposition that there are two are separate paths for processing face recognition and facial expression. One being Humphreys, Avidan, and Behrmann (2007) who studied triple participants with developmental prosopagnosia. All three had poor ability to cope faces, but their ability to recognise facial expressions was uniform 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 exp ressions, which implies that facial expression analysis and name times is separately processed. This supports Bruce and Youngs imagination 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.