Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cfu l4 Part 2
Cfu l4 Part 2
Question 1
Correct
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 1
The Bruce and Young (1986) model of face recognition:
Select one or more:
Stands in contrast to Haxby, Hoffman & Gobbini’s (2000) neurological model
of face recognition
Is a connectionist model
Has independent processing paths for identity, expression and facial
speech
Is most highly specified for familiar face recognition
Question 2
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 2
Facial identity and facial expression are processed independently
Select one or more:
in line with Haxby, Hoffman & Gobbini’s (2000) neurological model of face
recognition
consistent with findings that face familiarity does not influence expression
recognition performance
as indicated by double dissociations with prosopagnosics and patients with
impaired expression recognition
in contradiction to what the Bruce and Young (1986) model predicts
Question 3
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 3
Haxby, Hoffman and Gobbini's (2000) neurological model of face recognition
Select one or more:
maps different aspects of face processing to different brain regions
is consistent with the Bruce and Young (1986) model of face recognition
has distinct pathways for the processing of identity and expression of faces
has distinct pathways for the processing of invariant and changeable aspects
of faces
Question 4
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR Models 4
Which option accurately describes the contents of the stages of the Bruce and
Young (1986) model?
Image of
face Choose...
Semantic Choose...
information
Description Choose...
of face
Face
recognition Choose...
units
Names Choose...
Question 5
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR Models 5
Young, Hay and Ellis (1985) conducted a diary study of face recognition errors,
the results of which helped develop the stage structure of the Bruce and Young
(1986) model. Match each of the 4 error types to the component of the model it
supports.
Failure to
recognise
familiar
person, that
is, where a
perceived Choose...
face does
not match
up with a
face stored
in memory
Tip-of-the-
tongue
phenomenon
where all
details but Choose...
the name of
a person are
known
Erroneously
recognising
an unfamiliar Choose...
person as
someone
you know
Know a
person is
familiar but
cannot
identify who Choose...
they are or
how they are
known to
you
Question 6
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 6
The order of decision timing about faces from fastest to slowest is
Select one or more:
Familiarity, Semantic, Naming
Accounted for by both the IAC model and the Bruce & Young (1986) model of
face recognition
Familiarity, Naming, Semantic
Naming, Semantic, Familiarity
Question 7
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 7
Semantic priming effects in face recognition
Select one or more:
Occurs across domain
Are better explained by IAC model than the Bruce & Young (1986) model
Can occur within and across domain
Occur due to stronger links between FRUs and semantic information
Occur due to shared semantic information
Are all adequately explained by the Bruce & Young (1986) model
Question 8
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 8
The IAC model of face recognition
Select one or more:
Accounts for semantic priming
Is a connectionist model
Is a stage model
Accounts for cross-modal semantic priming
Is a face-space model
Improves on the Bruce & Young (1986) model of face recognition
Question 9
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 9
The links in the IAC model
Select one or more:
Are inhibitory within the pools of units
Are excitatory within the pools of units
Are excitatory between the pools of units
Are inhibitory between the pools of units
Question 10
Not answered
Marked out of 1.00
FR models 10
Patient PH (de Haan et al.,1987; Young et al., 1988) is a prosopagnosic who
cannot recognise faces but shows evidence of associative processing (eg, can
pair familiar faces, show normal name interference effects). The IAC model can
account for PH’s pattern of behaviour by
Select one or more:
Removing the connections between the FRUs and PINs
Weakening the connections between the FRUs and PINs
Weakening the connections within the pool of the FRUs
Weakening the connections between the PINs and SIUs