Face and Object Cognition Across Age

Face and object cognition across age

Online Supplement

Appendix A: Overview of Indicators

Indicator / Name of Indicator / Speed/
Acc / Nr. of trials / Macc / SDacc
FP 1 & 2 / Sequential matching of part- (FP 1) whole (FP 2) faces / acc / 60 / .69 & .67 / .11 & .11
FP 3 & 4 / Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces (FP 3 – upright; FP 4 – inverted) / acc / 60 / .73 & .64 / .12 & .11
OP 1 & 2 / Sequential matching of part- (OP 1) whole (OP 2) houses / acc / 60 / .70 & .67 / .11 & .11
OP 3 & 4 / Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated houses (FP 3 – upright; FP 4 – inverted) / acc / 60 / .70 & .68 / .13 & .12
FM1 / Learning and immediate memory of faces / acc / 150 / .86 / .09
FM 2 / Delayed recognition of learned faces 1 / acc / 30 / .83 / .12
FM 4 / Delayed recognition of learned faces 2 / acc / 30 / .85 / .12
FM 3 / Eyewitness testimony / acc / 46 / .72 / .11
SFC 1 / Recognition speed of learned faces / speed / 32 / .88 / .11
SFC2 / Delayed non-matching to sample faces / speed / 46 / .94 / .11
SFC3 / Simultaneous matching of faces from different viewpoints / speed / 30 / .88 / .08
SFC4 & 5 / Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves / speed / 60 / .94 & .93 / .11 & .10
SFC6 / Simultaneous matching of face morphs / speed / 30 / .91 / .08
SOC 1 / Delayed non-matching to sample houses / speed / 46 / .92 / .14
SOC 2 / Simultaneous matching of morphed houses / speed / 30 / .95 / .05
SOC 3 / Verification task (houses) / speed / 46 / .87 / .07

Note.Classification of the indicators as measures of Face Perception (FP), Object Perception (OP), Face Memory (FM), Speed of Face Cognition (SFC) and the Speed of ObjectCognition (SOC), speed versus accuracy (acc) as predominant source of performance variability, Macc – mean performance; SDacc – Standard Deviation.

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix B: Task descriptions

Name of Indicators / Task description
Sequential matching of part-whole faces and houses / A face vs. house was presented for 1s. After aninterstimulus interval of 200 ms, a face (eyes, nose, or mouth) or house detail (window, door, or roof) appeared in the part condition together with the same feature extracted from a different face / house.Participants indicated which of two features belonged to the target face or house. In the whole condition, the target face / house was presented together with a distracter composed of the target face / house with one facial feature (eyes, nose, or mouth) or one house detail replaced by the corresponding detail from another face or house. Targets had to be indicated. Part and whole conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix C.
Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces vs. houses / Two faces / houses were presented simultaneously either upright (50% of trials) or turned upside down (inverted). Stimuli within a trial were always from the same face / house. Half of the trials presentedfacesor houses unaltered. In the other half of the trials one spatial relationship between facial features or house details in one of the faces (e.g. distance between eyes and nose, between eyes, between mouth and nose) or houses (e.g. distance between windows) in one of the stimuli was manipulated. Participants indicated whether these pictures were identical or not (conditions same vs. different). For stimuli examples see Appendix D.
Learning and immediate memory of faces / The task had two procedurally identical parts. In each part, fifteen faces were presented for 45 seconds. Participants were asked to memorize as many faces as possible. The recognition phase consisted of five runs and followed the study phase after two minutes, in which participants completed an unrelated intermediate task. Targets (learned faces) appeared once in each recognition run always coupled with new and highly similar distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated. To ensure further learning during the recognition phase, feedback was given after each response. Targets were highlighted by a green frame, regardless of the participants’ accuracy. For false responses, distracters were additionally crossed out with red bars labeled with the German word “falsch” (i.e., incorrect).
Delayed recognition of learned faces 1 / Recognition performance for the total of 30 faces studied during the Learning and immediate memory of faces task was assessed in the same session approximately two and a half hours later. Learned faces appeared successively, together with completely new distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated.
Delayed recognition of learned faces 2 / At the beginning of the second test session, approximately one week after learning, participants were asked to recognize the 30 faces learned during theLearning and immediate memory of facestask.
Eyewitness testimony / In this incidental memory task two faces per trial were presented, one of which was already presented in two preceding tasks for face cognition speed. Participants were asked to indicate the previously seen face.
Name of Indicators / Task description (continued)
Recognition speed of learned faces / The task consisted of four parts.A study phase was followed by a delay and a recognition phase. Four faces were presented for one minute. The long presentation timewas chosen to allow for robust encoding. During a delay timeof approximately four minutes, participants completed a reasoning test. By recognition, four learned and four new faces appeared on the screen one at a time. Participants had to indicate whether the presented face is a learned or new face.
Delayed non-matching to sample faces vs. houses / A target face / house waspresented for 1 s, followed by a 4 s delay. Thereafter, target face / house was presented together with a new face / house.Participants were asked to indicate the novel face / house.
Simultaneous matching of faces from different viewpoints / Two faces per trial were presented. They were arranged in the diagonal of the screen, one in frontal and the other in three-quarter view. Participants indicated whether the faces depicted the same person or different people.
Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves / Facial stimuli were divided horizontally into upper and lower halves. The upper half of a face was added to the lower half of another face, forming a composite face. Upper and lower halves were always from different people. In the aligned condition, face halves were attached to form a new normally structured face. In the non-aligned condition, the left or right face-edges of the top face-halves were positioned above the nose of the bottom face-halves. In each condition, two composite faces were presented in the diagonal of the screen. Participants compared the upper face-halves of two simultaneously presented aligned (50% of trials) or non-aligned faces and decided whether or not they originated from the same person. Aligned and non-aligned conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix F.
Simultaneous matching of face morphs vs. morphed housed / Face stimuli for any given trial were derived with the morphing method from the same two parent facesmorphed together to varying degrees. Pairs of morphs were either similar or dissimilar (50% of trials). House stimuli were unaltered pictures of houses. Pairs depicted either the same house or different houses. Participants made a similarity decision for each pair.
Verification task (houses) / Houses were presented one at a time. Participants indicated whether the presented house had only quadrangular windows or also some of another form.

Face and object cognition across age

Appendix C: Procedure of indicators FP 1 and FP 2

Adapted from “Structural Invariance and Age-Related Performance Differences in Face Cognition - Online Supplement” by A. Hildebrandt, W. Sommer, G. Herzmann and O. Wilhelm, 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, pp. 794-810. Copyright 2010 by the American Psychological Association.

Sequential matching of part-whole faces –conditions part andcondition whole

Panel A –procedure of the part condition

Panel B –procedure of the whole condition

Appendix D: Examples of stimuliused for the indicators FP 3, FP 4, OP 3 and OP 4 Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces – conditionuprightandcondition inverted

Panel A Panel B

original face/upright condition eyes-nose relation altered/upright condition

Panel C Panel D

original face/inverted condition eyes-nose relation altered/inverted condition

Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated houses – conditionuprightandcondition inverted

Panel EPanel F

originalhouse/upright conditionmanipulated distance between windows and roof/

upright condition

Panel GPanel H

originalhouse/inverted condition manipulated distance between window ranks/

inverted condition

Appendix E: Examples of stimuli for indicators SFC 4andSFC 5

Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves –condition aligned and condition non-aligned

Panel A

condition aligned

Panel B

condition non-aligned