Citation
Extraction of nonidentity information from unfamiliar faces

Material Information

Title:
Extraction of nonidentity information from unfamiliar faces an investigation of normal and pathological face processing
Creator:
Greve, Kevin W., 1960-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 173 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Control groups ( jstor )
Face ( jstor )
Facial expressions ( jstor )
Hemispheres ( jstor )
Identity ( jstor )
Memory ( jstor )
Occupational classification ( jstor )
Occupational stereotypes ( jstor )
Prosopagnosia ( jstor )
Stereotypes ( jstor )
Facial Expression ( mesh )
Form Perception ( mesh )
Pattern Recognition, Visual ( mesh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1991.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 164-172).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kevin W. Greve.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
26208756 ( OCLC )
ocm26208756
001708442 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

extractionofnoni00grev.pdf

extractionofnoni00grev_0146.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0096.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0172.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0184.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0081.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0000.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0148.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0070.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0091.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0121.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0180.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0004.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0106.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0041.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0077.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0177.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0061.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0094.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0118.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0082.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0052.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0128.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0098.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0093.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0150.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0095.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0173.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0002.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0086.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0067.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0073.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0189.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0186.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0132.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0044.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0142.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0009.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0192.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0133.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0051.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0043.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0183.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0163.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0139.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0057.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0159.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0065.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0046.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0088.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0068.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0054.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0164.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0025.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0019.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0144.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0078.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0020.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0115.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0006.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0084.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0185.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0170.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0151.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0001.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0038.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0157.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0179.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0167.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0045.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0161.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0158.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0191.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0075.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0103.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0030.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0125.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0155.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0010.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0003.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0104.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0187.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0145.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0024.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0027.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0080.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0013.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0136.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0017.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0120.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0135.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0090.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0127.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0114.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0168.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0102.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0058.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0165.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0174.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0014.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0087.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0131.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0016.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0107.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0031.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0076.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0079.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0047.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0063.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0156.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_pdf.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0149.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0117.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0175.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0092.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0130.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0099.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0119.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0152.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0050.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0147.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0089.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0134.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0026.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0182.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0042.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0039.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0018.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0055.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0008.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0035.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0060.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0037.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0123.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0171.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0178.txt

AA00011172_00001_pdf.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0129.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0040.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0066.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0108.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0137.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0034.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0097.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0162.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0011.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0033.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0069.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0116.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0100.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0021.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0110.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0113.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0140.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0064.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0049.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0012.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0112.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0141.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0138.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0015.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0032.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0153.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0036.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0190.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0160.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0176.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0074.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0109.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0181.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0169.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0122.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0085.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0083.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0072.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0154.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0124.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0022.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0071.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0188.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0143.txt

AA00011172_00001.pdf

extractionofnoni00grev_0126.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0053.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0059.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0023.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0166.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0028.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0005.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0048.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0062.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0105.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0029.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0056.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0101.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0111.txt

extractionofnoni00grev_0007.txt


Full Text











EXTRACTION OF NONIDENTITY INFORMATION FROM
UNFAMILIAR FACES: AN INVESTIGATION OF NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL FACE PROCESSING















By

KEVIN W. GREVE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1991




EXTRACTION OF NONIDENTITY INFORMATION FROM
UNFAMILIAR FACES: AN INVESTIGATION OF NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL FACE PROCESSING
By
KEVIN W. GREVE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1991


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It probably strikes most people at some point during
the course of a major research project that despite the
fact that it's "your project" you could not have hoped to
have completed it alone. I became aware of that fact
during the course of my master's thesis so I knew going
into this project that other people would play an
important role in it. On looking back, however, I am
still amazed at the number of people who have made
contributions to this project and I want to take this
opportunity to thank them.
I have been particularly fortunate to have had Rus
Bauer chair both my thesis and dissertation. My research
accomplishments as a graduate student are a testament to
the quality of his mentorship. His example as both a
clinician and scientist has given me a goal which I may
never attain. I want to thank Rus for both his guidance
and friendship. Dawn Bowers, in many ways, has felt and
functioned like a cochair on my dissertation and has given
me tremendous guidance and encouragement throughout this
project. She also happily lent me her only copy of the
Florida Facial Affect Test and gave me access to all her
unilateral stroke patients. It has been a pleasure
working with her. Eileen Fennell and Ira Fischler, as
ii


members of my dissertation committee, have also made
significant contributions to this project. Eileen has
also made significant contributions to my development as a
psychologist. Michael Conlon was always available when I
had statistical questions and was adept at understanding
my sometimes poorly word or conceptualized questions and
generating straight-forward and often relatively simple
statistical solutions. More importantly, as a
statistician who is not immersed in the psychological
belief system, he kept the rest of us psychologists honest
by offering insightful alternative interpretations. I
don't think I could have asked for a better dissertation
committee. Thank you.
Execution of this project was challenging. Many
stages of development were required before I ran my first
"real subjects. Randi Lincoln was my partner for the
first six months during which we collected photographs of
men and conducted all the preliminary classification
research on those photographs. John Paul Abner also
played a significant role in the photography portion of
this project. It is also important to thank all the male
students and faculty in the Department of Clinical &
Health Psychology, the Health Center employees, and
members of the Baptist Student Center who took time out to
be photographed and became the 101 stimulus faces. Many
of the subjects who were used in the preliminary
classification studies were either undergraduates from the
iii


Introductory Psychology subject pool or persons who
responded to newspaper ads. However, a large portion of
these subjects were members of the United Church of
Gainesville who were kind enough to allow us into their
church on Sunday mornings. Almost no one in the
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology escaped being
dragged into the lab and forced to stare into my
tachistoscope during the initial pilot studies. Tracy
Henderson contributed some of her free time helping me
collect control data. Her help allowed me to run subjects
twice as fast as I could have alone. We had a great
system. To all these people, without whom this project
would be no more than a proposal, thank you. I would also
like to offer special thanks to L.F., our prosopagnosic,
who, for the four years I have known him, has never
declined to come up to Gainesville for testing. Not only
is he an interesting patient and willing subject, he is a
thoughtful, insightful, and kind person.
Running this project was not an inexpensive
undertaking considering the cost of photography and
subject compensation. Rus Bauer paid the cost of
photography out of money that could have contributed to
his own professional enhancement. Ken Heilman and Dawn
Bowers allowed stroke subjects to be paid from their grant
which meant that I was able to get many patients who would
not have made the long trip to Gainesville without
compensation. My mother, Becky Warren, also made me a
iv


"research grant" that helped cover the cost of pilot study
subjects. Finally, the American Psychological Association
made a significant contribution to this research by
granting me a Dissertation Research Award in 1990.
There are many people who have directly impacted me
and my dissertation. But there are some whose major
contribution was that of making the ongoing course of
doing this dissertation less stressful and giving me
energy and encouragement. My wife, Janet Burroff, is
first and foremost among those people. It's hard to put
into words how important it has been for me to know that
she was there to talk to if things got tough. In my
thesis I thanked her for tolerating "my seemingly endless
blabber about this study" and thanks for that is also
appropriate although I think I didn't blabber quite as
much. Karen Clark and Beth Onufrak have been my
classmates for five years and my partners in crime for two
and a half. We have shared a lot in that time and their
company has always made me feel good. My parents, Doug
Greve and Becky Warren, and my grandmother, Rebecca
Musgrove, have always been tremendously supportive, always
thrilled at my accomplishments. Finally, it is important
to mention Danny Martin, who I have probably not said more
than two or three sentences to about the content of my
dissertation. Despite this, Danny has made a contribution
that is hard to measure: He has taken me fishing with
regularly for the past two years. When my stress level is
v


up and I'm feeling discouraged and low on energy, there is
no better therapy than fishing. In fact, there is no
better therapy even when I'm feeling good.
Completing my dissertation represents the culmination
of my graduate career. This has been a wonderful
experience and if I had it to do again, I don't think I
would do anything differently (except start fishing
sooner). I couldn't have asked for better training, nor
for better people to learn from and with. Thank you all.
vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES X
ABSTRACT XV
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Neuroanatomy of Vision
Lateralization of Face Processing
Special Face Processing Systems
Facial Identity Processing
Facial Expression Processing
Cognitive Model of Face Processing....
Extraction of Nonobservable Attributes
Personality Trait Attributions
Occupational Category Attributions..
Summary
Purpose of this Study
Hypothesis
Direct Tests
Indirect Tests
2 METHODS AND RESULTS
Methods 49
Subjects 49
Tests of Face Memory and Perception 53
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information 54
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information... 57
General Procedure 59
Results 60
Tests of Face Memory and Perception 60
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information 62
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information... 74
Individual Performance on Expression Tasks 83
vii


page
3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 89
Summary 89
Discussion 94
Identity Processing 96
Expression Processing 98
Summary 106
Stereotype Processing 108
Conclusions 114
Future Directions 117
APPENDICES
A STEREOTYPE STIMULUS SET DEVELOPMENT 119
Category Selection 1 120
Category Selection II 122
Stimuli 122
Participants 122
Procedure 123
Results 124
Face Categorization 124
Participants 125
Stimuli 12 6
Procedure 12 6
Results 127
B PILOT STUDIES 13 0
Experiment B-l 130
Participants 13 0
Stimuli 130
Procedure 131
Results and Discussion 133
Experiment B-2 134
Participants 135
Results and Discussion 135
Experiment B-3 135
Stimuli and Procedure 136
Results and Discussion 137
Experiment B-4 137
Participants 137
Stimuli and Procedure 138
Results and Discussion 138
Experiment B-5 138
Stimuli and Procedures 139
Results and Discussion 140
Experiment B-6 142
Results 143
Summary and Discussion 145
viii


page
C STIMULUS FACES 147
REFERENCES 164
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 173
ix


LIST OF TABLES
page
TABLE 1-1 Outcome Assumptions Based on a Review
of the Previous Research for Each
Domain of Face Information 44
TABLE 2-1 Comparisons of Patient and Control
Groups on Demographic, WAIS-R Vocabulary
Score, and Time Post Injury 50
TABLE 2-2 Demographic and Lesion Location Data for
Individual Stroke Patients 51
TABLE 2-3 Means for the Tests of Face Memory and
Perception 61
TABLE 2-4 Mean Percent Correct for the Florida
Facial Affect Test Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests... 63
TABLE 2-5 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Occupational Stereotype Rating Test.... 66
TABLE 2-6 Results of t-Tests Comparing L.F.'s
Ratings in the Correct Versus Incorrect
Conditions for Each of the Rating Tests.... 68
TABLE 2-7 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Personality Stereotype Rating Test 69
TABLE 2-8 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Identity Rating Test 71
TABLE 2-9 Mean Difference Scores for Ratings Tests... 73
TABLE 2-10 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Occupation Category Interference
Test 75
TABLE 2-11 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Personality Descriptor
Interference Test 76
x


page
TABLE 2-12 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Expression-Label Interference Test 79
TABLE 2-13 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Identity Interference Test 81
TABLE 2-14 Performance of Stroke Patients on Direct
and Indirect Expression Tasks 85
TABLE 2-15 Association of Stroke Patient Performance
on Each FFAT Subtest with Performance on
Expression-Label Interference Task 87
TABLE 3-1 Observed Results of Direct Tests 92
TABLE 3-2 Observed Results of Indirect Tests 94
TABLE A-l Ranked Occupational and Personality
Category Images 121
TABLE A-2 Weighted Frequency of Category Usage
in the Set of 101 Faces 125
TABLE A-3 Descriptive Statistics for Face
Categorization Subjects 126
TABLE A-4 Final Set of Occupational and
Personality Stereotype Faces 129
TABLE B-l Means for the Control, Congruent, and
Incongruent Conditions in Experiments B-l
through B-4 133
TABLE B-2 Results of Experiment B-5 142
TABLE B-3 Mean Scores for Experiment B-6 144
xi


LIST OF FIGURES
page
FIGURE 1-1 A cognitive model of face processing
showing the hypothetical location of the
functional lesions in prosopagnosia and
RHD 2 6
FIGURE 1-2 Hypothetical cognitive model of face
processing 47
FIGURE 2-1 Performance on FFAT Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests.. 65
FIGURE 2-2 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Occupational Stereotype Test 67
FIGURE 2-3 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Personality Stereotype test 70
FIGURE 2-4 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Identity test 72
FIGURE 2-5 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions
on the Face-Personality Descriptor
interference task 77
FIGURE 2-6 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions on
the Expression-Label interference task.... 80
FIGURE 2-7 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions
on the Face-Identity task 82
FIGURE 3-1 Model of face processing hypothesized
in Chapter 1 90
FIGURE C-l Laborer 148
FIGURE C-2 Accountant 149
xii


page
FIGURE C-3 Athlete 150
FIGURE C-4 Doctor 151
FIGURE C-5 Kind 152
FIGURE C-6 Sociable 153
FIGURE C-7 Aggressive 154
FIGURE 08 Intolerant 155
FIGURE 09 Happy 156
FIGURE C-10 Sad 157
FIGURE Oil Angry 158
FIGURE 012 Frightened 159
FIGURE 013 John Kennedy 160
FIGURE 014 Lyndon Johnson 161
FIGURE 015 Bob Hope 162
FIGURE 016 Elvis Presley 163
xiii


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
EXTRACTION OF NONIDENTITY INFORMATION FROM
UNFAMILIAR FACES: AN INVESTIGATION OF NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL FACE PROCESSING
by
Kevin W. Greve
August, 1991
Chairman: Russell M. Bauer, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical & Health Psychology
Human beings are normally able to accurately
recognize the identity or affective expression of a face
based solely on the visual features of the face. However,
these abilities can be differentially disrupted in certain
cases of brain injury. For instance, persons with right
hemisphere cerebral lesions often cannot recognize facial
expression while they remain able to recognize identity.
The converse is true in prosopagnosia which results from
bilateral occipitotemporal lesions. Additionally, normals
can consistently extract a wide variety of other
information, such as information about personality and
apparent occupation (so-called stereotype information),
from a face that does not yield specific conclusions about
its identity or emotional state. While the ability to
make stereotype judgements has been extensively explored
xiv


in the social psychology literature, nothing about their
neurological basis is known, including whether these
processes are significantly impaired in brain disease.
This study was designed to help understand the cognitive
and neurobehavioral mechanisms underlying these abilities.
A prosopagnosic and his 15 age-matched controls and
20 single-event unilateral stroke patients (10 right, RHD;
10 left, LHD) and their 15 age-matched controls were
administered two tests of face perception and memory and
both direct and indirect measures of identity recognition,
expression judgement, and personality and occupational
stereotype identification. Normal subjects and patients
with LHD were unimpaired on all tests except the indirect
occupational stereotype test. The failure of all subjects
on this task was attributed to a shortcoming of the task.
The RHD patients were globally impaired in expression
recognition but were unimpaired on the famous faces and
personality stereotype tests. Their impairment could not
be explained by perceptual dysfunction and, after
considering alternative explanations, this deficit was
attributed to the functional destruction of expression
representations in memory. The prosopagnosic was impaired
on the direct occupational stereotype and famous faces
tests and on the indirect expression and famous faces
tests. His failure on the indirect tasks was attributed
to an interaction between inadequacies of the measures and
a nonconfigural, feature-based mode of face processing.
xv


It was concluded that occupational stereotype decisions
were based on identity information; whether expression or
identity information contributes to personality stereotype
judgements remains an unresolved issue to be explored in
future studies.
xv i


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Face perception is a vitally important process for
primates, including humans, and information provided by
faces plays an important role in social interaction. It
should come as no surprise that the ability to
discriminate faces begins at a very early age, nor should
it be surprising that there exist populations of cells
within the primate brain that respond primarily to faces
and whose patterns of responding may even differentiate
among faces (Baylis, Rolls, & Leonard, 1985). With little
effort we seem able to judge the sex and age of a person
simply by looking at his/her face. Equally remarkable is
the consistency with which individuals make of judgements
of attractiveness (Secord, 1958) or likeability (Greve &
Bauer, 1988) across individuals. We are also able to
categorize faces based on apparent occupation (Klatzky,
Martin, & Kane, 1982a) and facial expression (Ekman,
Friesan, & Eilsworth, 1972). Because of the importance of
faces in everyday life, our vast experience with faces in
a myriad of contexts has taught us to automatically
extract from them extensive amounts of information.
1


2
There do exist, however, certain neurologically
impaired individuals who have lost or are significantly
impaired in the ability to accurately make many of the
above discriminations. Persons who suffer strokes of the
right cerebral hemisphere often have impaired recognition
of affective facial expression, though their ability to
recognize facial identity may be spared (Bowers, Bauer,
Coslett, & Heilman, 1985). On the other hand,
prosopagnosics, who have suffered bilateral brain
impairment, may still recognize affective facial
expression, but have lost the ability to identify faces
(Levine & Calvanio, 1989). The evidence supporting the
conception of face recognition (which is based on
extraction of "identity information) and affect
identification (based on extraction of information which
is unrelated to the identity of the face) as independent
processes is compelling.
The term "identity recognition" has been used in
reference to three fairly distinct and partially
dissociable abilities (Benton, 1990) First, this term
has been used to refer to the ability of a person to match
unfamiliar faces. The most notable example of this usage
is the "Test of Facial Recognition" (Levin, Hamsher, &
Benton, 1975) in which the patient must find the face
within a set of six which is the same as a target face.
Elements of the Benton task require processing of faces as
faces in that for some items the subject must match a


3
stimulus face with targets that are oriented or lighted
differently. However, matching to sample or face
discrimination tasks which ask "are these two faces the
same or different people" (e.g., Bowers et al.. 1985) are
often used to screen for visuoperceptual impairment. This
usage will be referred to as "face discrimination." A
second usage of this term refers to a persons ability to
indicate whether an unfamiliar face has been previously
presented. Examples of such tasks include the Milner
Facial Recognition Test (Milner, 1968) and Denman's (1984)
Memory for Human Faces. In these tasks the subject
studies a large set of unfamiliar faces then selects the
ones he/she remembers after a delay. This will be
referred to as "face memory." Finally, facial recognition
may refer to the ability to name or otherwise identify
familiar faces (such as those of family or celebrities) as
assessed, for example, by the Albert Famous Faces (Albert,
Butters, & Levin, 1979). This will be referred to as
"facial identity recognition" and is of major interest in
this study. Warrington and James (1967) found no
correlation between an unfamiliar face memory task and a
famous faces task among unilateral cerebral lesion
patients. Similarly, Benton (1985) found a dissociation
between face discrimination and identity recognition in a
prosopagnosic.
The ability to categorize unfamiliar faces in terms
of nonobservable attributes such personality


4
characteristics and apparent occupational category
membership does not rely on knowledge of the actual
identity of a stimulus face but seems to depend on access
(which is not necessarily conscious) to faces with known
attributes. The question arises as to the role of facial
identity and expression processing in the categorization
of faces in terms of nonobservable attributes. The
studies contained herein were designed to investigate this
question.
This introduction is divided into five sections. The
first discusses neuroanatomically and functional distinct
systems for processing visual stimuli. The second extends
this discussion to evidence concerning the lateralization
of face processing abilities. The third section review
reviews data supporting the existence of relatively
specialized subsystems in the right hemisphere for the
processing of facial identity and expression. In the
fourth section a useful cognitive model is then presented
which is designed to explain the various processes
involved in the recognition of familiar, unfamiliar, and
emotional faces. The final section argues that humans are
able to extract from faces information about nonobservable
characteristics that do not lead to judgements about
identity or affective state and raises questions about the
relationship of the former ability to the latter two.


5
Neuroanatomv of Vision
It is now quite clear that vision is not a single
unitary phenomenon but consists of parallel and serial
processes occurring in distinct anatomic pathways which
deal with varied aspects of the visual stimulus. The
laminar and columnar structure of striate cortex reflects
the grouping of neurons according to their functional
roles (Kaas, 1989). For example, there are layers which
typically contain color-selective fields (Illb), while
others (IIIc) are responsive to stimulus orientation and
direction. Additionally, there are the "ocular dominance
columns" and "orientation columns" described by Hubei and
Wiesel (1977). "Ocular dominance columns" are three-
dimensional strips of cortex (not true columns) that
extend vertically through all layers of striate cortex and
respond to stimulation of one eye only. "Orientation
columns" are similar to "ocular dominance columns" except
that they are responsive to stimuli of one particular
orientation only (Hubei, 1988).
Architecture reflects function not only at the
cortical level, but apparently at precortical levels as
well. Kaas (1989) describes three parallel visual
pathways which originate in the retina. The "X" pathway
plays a role in object recognition, while the "Y" pathway
seems to be involved in attention and movement detection.
The third system, "W", is poorly understood but seems to


6
interact with the other two, especially "X", and modulate
and enhance their neuronal firing.
There is further, strong evidence for the extension
of the "X" and "Y" pathways beyond primary visual cortex.
One pathway extends, multisynapticly, from striate cortex
to the inferior temporal area, later synapsing in the
limbic system and ventral frontal lobe (Mishkin,
Ungerleider, & Macko, 1983). This pathway, the ventral
visual-limbic pathway, appears critical for object
recognition (Mishkin et al.. 1983) and has "emotional as
well as 'mnestic' functions which are modality-specific to
vision" (Bauer, 1984; p. 465).
A second system described by Mishkin et al. (1983)
appears to function as the extension of the "Y" pathway.
This pathway runs dorsally in the superior longitudinal
fasciculus to interconnect striate cortex with the
parietal lobe and continues on to synapse in the limbic
system and dorso-lateral frontal lobe, thus forming the
dorsal visuo-limbic pathway. This system appears
important in attention, visual guidance of motor acts
(Mishkin et al.. 1983) and spatial localization of "drive
relevant stimuli" (p. 198; Bear, 1983).
The function of the ventral and dorsal visuo-limbic
systems is integrated in normal object vision. Retinal
inputs to the ventral system are primarily foveal, while
inputs from both the fovea and retinal periphery are
egually important to the dorsal system (Mishkin et al.,


7
1983). Bauer (1984) speculated "that the kind of
processing which is taking place in the dorsal system
involves the deployment of attention and processing effort
toward stimuli which appear significant in a cursory,
preliminary or 'preattentive* analysis. The stimulus is
then foveated, and the visual-discriminatory and modality-
specific arousal functions of the ventral system are
brought to bear on the process of overt identification"
(p. 466).
In addition to the functional differences between the
ventral and dorsal visual-limbic pathways, lateralized
asymmetries are also an important feature of the cerebral
organization of vision. Numerous studies indicate that
the left hemisphere mediates supramodal processing of
verbal stimuli (for a brief review, see Lezak, 1983). Of
greater importance for this study is the lateralization of
face processing which is discussed in the next section.
Lateralization of Face Processing
The right hemisphere plays a major role in mediating
processing of configural stimuli, of which face processing
is an important example. One of the earliest reports
concerning impairment in face processing was one by
Quaglino and Borelli (1867 [cited in Benton, 1990]) who
described impairment of facial recognition (familiar
faces) after a stroke involving primarily the right
hemisphere but also probably extending to the left. In


8
later studies of patients with lateralized cerebral
lesions DeRenzi, Faglioni, and Spinnler (1968) and Benton
and Van Allen (1968) demonstrated impaired face
discrimination in patients with right-hemisphere lesions.
DeRenzi et al. (1968) evaluated 114 patients with
unilateral lesions using several tasks that involved
matching of face fragments to whole faces, matching faces
with different orientations, and memory for unfamiliar
faces. Overall, the right hemisphere patients were
impaired on these tasks.
In a similar study Benton and Van Allen (1968) asked
37 unilateral cerebral lesion patients to indicate which
face from an array of six was the same as the stimulus
face. In one form of the test target face and the
stimulus face were exact matches. In the two other forms
the target faces differed from the stimulus faces in
either orientation or lighting angle. It was found that
while the left hemisphere patients were impaired relative
to the normal controls, the performance of the right
hemisphere patients was significantly inferior to that of
the left hemisphere patients. They concluded that "the
impairment in facial recognition [face discrimination] as
assessed by [these] procedures ... is rather closely
associated with disease of the right hemisphere" (p. 358).
Milner (1968) found that among epileptic patients who
had undergone brain surgery to control their seizures the
right temporal and parietal patients were more impaired


9
than right frontal and left hemisphere patients on a task
that required remembering and later recognizing unfamiliar
faces. Further analysis indicated that the degree of
impairment in the right temporal group was related to the
amount of hippocampus removed. Milner argued that these
findings reflected a visual memory disturbance not the
disruption of a system specific to face memory.
Finally, Kolb, Milner, and Taylor (1983) presented
seizure surgery patients with a stimulus face and two
target faces created by joining mirror images of each half
of the stimulus face and asked them which seemed most like
the stimulus face. Patients with left hemisphere and
right frontal lesions showed a bias for selecting the
target face made from the half of the stimulus face in the
left visual field, while the right temporal and right
parietal patients selected faces randomly. When the
stimuli were inverted the same basic pattern of results
was found. Kolb et al. argued that "the posterior part of
the right hemisphere is specialized for the processing of
complex visual patterns, of which faces are a particularly
striking example" (p. 16).
The right hemisphere also seems to play a significant
role in the processing of faces in normals. For example,
Suberi and McKeever (1977) asked subjects to discriminate
between studied faces and unstudied faces that were
presented tachistoscopically to either the left or right
visual field. Reaction time to indicate whether the face


10
had been studied was measured. They found a left visual
field advantage (faster reaction times) which indicated
faster processing of faces by the right hemisphere. If
emotional faces were studied, reaction times were even
faster to left visual field presentation. Ley and Bryden
(1979) demonstrated a similar left visual field advantage
using cartoon faces. They tachistoscopically presented
(85ms) an emotional cartoon face to either the right or
left visual field followed by a longer (1000 ms) central
presentation of a second face. The task was to indicate
whether the two faces had the same emotion and whether
they were the same character. The number of errors for
each discrimination task and visual field were calculated.
The results revealed significantly fewer errors on both
the emotion and character discrimination tasks for
presentations to the left visual field (right hemisphere)
again suggesting a right hemisphere superiority for
processing faces in normal subjects. Similar results were
reported by Strauss and Moscovitch (1981). These two
studies of normals present evidence for right hemisphere
superiority in processing faces, including emotional
faces.
As one might expect, given the right hemisphere
superiority for processing emotional faces in normals
described above, damage to the right hemisphere also
results in impairment in the ability to comprehend the
emotional expression of faces. DeKosky, Heilman, Bowers,


11
and Valenstein (1980) gave right and left hemisphere
lesion patients and normal controls six tasks: 1)
discriminate whether two photographs are of the same or
different people (identity discrimination; to rule out
perceptual disturbance); 2) name the emotional on a
stimulus face; 3) choose the face bearing the designated
emotional expression; 4) indicate whether two faces bore
the same or different emotional expression; 5) name the
emotion depicted by a cartoon scene; and, 6) choose the
cartoon scene which depicts the designated emotion. The
right hemisphere patients were impaired relative to the
left hemisphere patients on all tasks except #6 (choose
the emotional scene). This suggests that the ability to
comprehend emotion in faces and visual scenes is a special
process of the right hemisphere though these abilities
were also impaired in left hemisphere disease relative to
normals. Covarying performance on the face discrimination
task resulted in the elimination of all differences
between the left and right hemisphere patients suggesting
that the greater difficulty of the right hemisphere group
on these emotional tasks may be the result of a
visuoperceptual disturbance.
The evidence seems to firmly support the conclusion
that the right hemisphere is superior to the left in
processing both emotional and nonemotional faces.
However, no evidence has been presented to argue against
viewing face processing as anything more than a special


12
case of complex visuospatial processing for which the
right hemisphere is particularly well suited. The next
section describes evidence which suggests that facial
identity and expression processing are supported by
mechanisms beyond visuoperceptual processes and
independent of each other.
Special Face Processing Systems
Facial Identity Processing
Prosopagnosia Prosopagnosia is a rare
neurobehavioral syndrome characterized by the inability to
overtly recognize familiar faces encountered before and
after illness onset. Lissauer (1889; cited in Bauer,
1985) categorized agnosics (which would include
prosopagnosics) as "associative" and "apperceptive."
Apperceptive prosopagnosics are characterized by severe
perceptual disturbance and who often are unable to even
recognize faces as faces. Associative prosopagnosics are
able to form a complete visual facial percept but unable
to give it meaning. In other words, they are able to
recognize a face as a face and to accurately match
unfamiliar faces (Benton, 1985) yet completely lack a
sense of familiarity when presented with a familiar face
and are unable to generate either a name for or semantic
information (e.g., occupation) about the face presented.
It is generally considered that the prosopagnosia results
from bilateral lesions of visual association cortex


13
(Brodman's areas 18 and 19) and the occipitotemporal
projection system although there is a persistent
contention that a single right hemisphere lesion may be
sufficient to cause prosopagnosia (see Benton, 1990).
Bauer and Trobe (1984) and Damasio, Damasio, and Van
Hoesen (1982) argue that these lesions appear to disrupt
both perceptual elaboration and visual memory. Levine
and Calvanio (1989), however, have convincingly argued
that "the perceptual and memory defects [in prosopagnosia]
are not distinct impairments in different stages of visual
recognition but instead are two aspects of the same
underlying disorder, which we call defective visual
'configural* processing" (p. 151).
To summarize their rather extensive findings, their
prosopagnosic: 1) cannot recognize the faces of live
people or photographs of famous people; 2) can match
faces, but has more trouble matching different views of
the same face; 3) cannot remember face-name pairings, but
does better in indicating which of those faces were
previously presented; 4) has trouble identifying animals
and made errors of underspecification (i.e., made his
decisions based on single features of the stimulus); 5)
can name real objects generically but had trouble with
photographs; 6) reads accurately, but slowly; 7) had
trouble identifying incomplete line drawings of objects or
those embedded in visual white noise; 8) performed
adequately on word-fragment completion, anagram, and tasks


14
in which words were hidden in rows of random letters; 9)
perceptual (visual search) speed was slow; 10) had mixed
performance on a variety of other visuospatial tasks; and,
11) had a mild multimodal memory defect but had a severe
visual identification defect. These data suggest that
their prosopagnosic cannot "identify by getting an
overview of an item as a whole in a single glance" (p.
159) and echo Bauer and Trobe (1984) in their report that
"most often, the reason for his [L.F.'sJ success is that a
single detail or contour is sufficient to specify the
object's identity . visual identification has become a
logical process rather than a visual one'" (p. 160).
This suggests that prosopagnosia is not the result of
a disruption of a specific face processing system, a
conclusion that is further supported by the finding that
the impairment in prosopagnosia is not limited to human
faces. Faust (1955; cited in Bauer, 1985) reported a
patient who became unable to discriminate among chairs
while Lhermitte and Pillon (1975; cited in Bauer, 1985)
described a patient who could not recognize specific
automobiles. Similarly, Bornstein and colleagues
(Bornstein, 1963; Bornstein, Sroka, & Munitz, 1969) have
described a birdwatcher and a farmer who became unable to
recognize birds and his individual cows, respectively.
L.F. (our prosopagnosic) reports being unable to determine
the make and model of cars and make temporal associations
to clothing and automobile styles. Damasio et al. (1982)


15
argue that the prosopagnosic defect involves the
discrimination of any visual stimulus from within a class
of visually similar members. The inability of
prosopagnosics to make a variety of within-class
discriminations suggests that some general disruption of
visual perception is responsible for the observed
impairments in prosopagnosia.
Despite the inability to explicitly identify familiar
faces, prosopagnosics do retain some spared access to the
facial representations (i.e., the Identity-Specific
Semantic Codes and Name Codes). Bauer (1984) demonstrated
this using autonomic measures. He constructed two sets of
facial stimuli containing 1) faces of celebrities and 2)
family members. Each face was presented for 90 seconds
while five names, one of which was the target, were read
aloud while skin conductance was measured. All names
within a set were from the same semantic category. For
example, if Bing Crosby's face was presented all the
alternative names were actors or singers. When a family
member's face was presented all the alternatives were
names from the person's nuclear family. Maximum skin
conductance responses occurred to 60% of correct face-name
pairings in a prosopagnosic despite the patient's
inability to overtly identify any of the faces. Tranel
and Damasio (1985) and Bauer and Verfaellie (1988)
replicated this finding.


16
DeHaan, Young, and Newcombe (1987) demonstrated
preserved access to face identity information such as name
and occupation using an interference paradigm. In this
procedure, the prosopagnosic was shown a face with a
"speech bubble" extending from the mouth. Within the
"speech bubble" was a name which was to be classified as a
politician or non-politician, with reaction time (RT) as
the dependent measure. Three face-name conditions were
used: 1) "same person", in which the name presented
belonged to the face shown; 2) "related", in which the
name presented belonged to a different person from the
same occupational category as the face shown; and, 3)
"unrelated", in which the name presented belonged to a
different person from a different category. Their
prosopagnosic and controls showed the same performance
pattern: the RTs for the "same person" and "related"
conditions did not significantly differ. However, the RTs
for the "unrelated" condition were significantly longer
than those for the other two conditions. This suggests
that knowledge about the occupation of the person pictured
interfered with the politician-non-politician decision
despite the prosopagnosic's inability to overtly classify
the faces. DeHaan, Bauer, and Greve (in press) replicated
this finding with the prosopagnosic L.F. who had been the
subject of the autonomic recognition studies discussed
earlier.


17
Thus, despite profound failure of memory when
confronted with tests whose instructions require reference
to a prior learning episode (direct measures; e.g.,
recognition), prosopagnosics can, under certain
circumstances, demonstrate knowledge on tests in which
facilitation or modification of performance indicates the
contents of memory without direct reference to those
contents (so-called indirect measures; cf. Johnson &
Hasher, 1987; Richarson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988; Hintzman,
1990). This finding is relevant to discussions concerning
the nature of the hypothesized memory processes involved
in performance of these tasks. According to Reingold and
Merikle (1988) "The sensitivity of a direct discrimination
is assumed to be greater than or equal to the sensitivity
of a comparable indirect discrimination to conscious, task
relevant information" (p. 556). The implication of this
assumption is that "unconscious [or implicit; Schacter,
1987] memory processes are implicated whenever an indirect
measure shows greater sensitivity than a comparable direct
measure" (Merikle & Reingold, 1991; p. 225). Thus it can
be inferred that the normal performance of prosopagnosics
on indirect face processing tasks represents the
functioning of unconscious (or implicit) memory processes.
This supports the contention of DeHaan, et al.. (1987)
that prosopagnosia is the result of a failure to
consciously access intact facial representations.


18
Behavioral Evidence. Behavioral evidence that faces
are processed via a special system is limited but does
exist. Yin (1969) compared memory for unfamiliar faces
with memory for other classes of familiar objects which
are customarily seen in one orientation (i.e., photos of
houses, airplane silhouette drawings, and cartoon stick
figures) in both unright and inverted orientation. He
found that inversion made all the materials harder to
remember, but face memory was disproportionately impaired
by inversion. That is faces were easier to remember in
the upright position than other materials, they were
harder to remember than the other classes of stimuli in
the inverted position. He suggested that some "face-
specific process made the recognition of upright faces
easy, but was of little use in the recognition of all
other materials including inverted faces" (p. 397). In a
similar study using brain injured patients, Yin (1970)
compared memory for faces and houses in both upright and
inverted orientations. He found that the right posterior
patients were impaired on upright faces compared to all
other lesion groups and normals, but better on inverted
faces. This finding was attributed to a deficit specific
to normally presented faces. This type of evidence
suggests that more is involved in face processing than
visuospatial ability.
Brain Stimulation and Recording Data. The most
compelling evidence that faces are processed as a special


19
class of stimuli comes from studies of single cell
recording from the brains of humans and monkeys. Heit,
Smith, and Halgren (1988) implanted bilateral depth
electrodes in the medial temporal lobe of patients with
intractable seizures in an attempt to locate their seizure
focus. They found some cells in the right hippocampus
which responded to specific faces. This is consistent
with Milner's (1968) finding that the most severe face
memory defect among temporal lobe resection patients
occurred with hippocampal involvement.
Leonard, Rolls, Wilson, and Baylis (1985) found face-
selective neurons in the amygdala of monkeys. These
neurons were sensitive to two- and three-dimension human
and monkey faces while being relatively unresponsive to
gratings, simple geometric and complex three-dimensional
stimuli, and to arousing and aversive stimuli. These
neurons responded differently to different faces and
sometimes responded to parts of faces. Baylis et al.
(1985) reported similar neurons in the middle and anterior
portion of the superior temporal sulcus. One important
feature of these neurons is that while they responded
differently to different faces, they did not respond only
to one face. What this means is that the pattern of
neuronal firing across a group of face neurons can code
many more faces than if one neuron were devoted to each
face and may represent parallel distributed processing.


20
Summary The subtle perceptual defect seen in
prosopagnosia is not sufficient to rule out the
possibility of a special face processing system for
several reasons. First, the familiar face recognition
impairment in associative prosopagnosia is dissociated
from the gross visuoperceptual abilities assessed by many
of the "identity" tasks described in the laterality
section. Second, as Shallice (1988) so clearly indicates,
the simple association of impairments (in this case,
either subtle visuoperceptual difficulties or the loss of
ability to recognize bird species with face recognition
impairment) does not rule out separate subsystems. The
dissociations between performance on face tasks and other
visuoperceptual tasks discussed above seem to offer
stronger evidence in favor of a face processing system.
Facial Expression Processing
Normal subjects. The existing evidence supporting
the contention that expression processing is independent
of face discrimination and memory in normals is of two
types. The first is the finding of statistical
independence of performance on face discrimination and
memory versus expression tasks. In other words, when
variance accounted for by performance on a face memory
task is partialled out, the left visual field advantage
for facial expression task performance remains. For
example, Ley and Bryden (1979) found a left visual field


21
(LFV; right hemisphere) advantage for expression
processing (as described in an earlier section) even after
the performance on their face identity task was partialled
out. A similar effect was reported by Pizzamiglio,
Zoccolotti, Mammucari, and Cesaroni (1983) who had
subjects discriminate studied from unstudied faces and, in
a second task, had subjects respond to a particular
emotional expression. They found the usual left visual
field advantage for both tasks. The advantage on the
expression task remained after the performance on the
identity task had been partialled out. They firmly
concluded that "though clearly dependent on a complex
visuoperceptual process to analyze facial stimuli, the
recognition of emotion in the human face requires a
separate and independent process preferentially
lateralized to the right hemisphere" (p. 185).
The second type of evidence which Ley and Strauss
(1986) argue supports the notion of independent processes
underlying expression and face discrimination is the
finding of different patterns of lateral asymmetry for the
two types of tasks. They note that most researchers
(e.g., Ley & Bryden, 1979; Suberi & McKeever, 1977) find a
left visual field advantage on both expression and
identity tasks, but difference in the size of the left
visual field advantage between tasks suggests that several
task-related factors may be important. As noted earlier,
it is possible that the greater left visual field


22
advantage in processing emotional faces occurs because the
addition of facial expression results in a more spatially
complex stimulus than a face without affect and is thus
processed less effectively by the left hemisphere which
doesn't handle configural material as well as the right.
To test this hypothesis McKeever and Dixon (1981) asked
subjects to discriminate between studied faces and
unstudied faces that were presented tachistoscopically to
either the left or right visual field. During the study
phase the subjects viewed two faces with neutral
expressions with instructions that indicated the person in
the photographs were either experiencing a neutral or very
sad emotion. This manipulation sought to add affect to
the faces without changing their spatial complexity. They
found a left visual field advantage in the emotional
condition but not in the neutral condition. They argued
that the effect of emotion on visual field superiority is
not the result of simply the greater spatial complexity of
affective faces but that strategic factors play a role.
This further supports the idea that facial expression
processing is more than just a complex visuospatial task.
Right Hemisphere Disease. Bowers et al. (1985),
using tasks similar to those of DeKosky et al. (1980),
found that right hemisphere patients were impaired
relative to the normal controls and left hemisphere
patients on all tasks. Unlike the results of DeKosky et
al. (1980), this impairment remained after partialling out


23
performance on the face discrimination subtest to control
for visuoperceptual ability. What is suggested is that
the right-hemisphere superiority for processing facial
expression may exist independently of its visuospatial
ability. Bowers and Heilman (1984) proposed the existence
of a "right-hemisphere iconic field, . which consists
of a corpus of pictorial representations, or schemata,
[and] is assumed important for categorizing and internally
representing visual images" (p. 375). This iconic field
would contain the schema or prototypes for affective
expressions and the failure of the facial percept to
access this field, either because of disconnection or
destruction, would result in a failure of affective
expression identification.
Prosopagnosia. A number of prosopagnosic cases have
been reported who have had difficulty recognizing facial
expression (e.g., Beyn & Knyazeva, 1962; Bornstein &
Kidron, 1959; Bauer, 1982). However, the presence of
relatively intact facial expression recognition in other
cases (e.g., Bruyer et al.. 1983; Cole & Perez-Cruet,
1964; DeHaan et al. 1987; Tranel, Damasio, & Damasio,
1988) indicates that impaired expression recognition is
not a necessary component of the syndrome of prosopagnosia
and supports the contention that facial expression
recognition is at least partly independent of facial
identity recognition.


24
Epileptic Patients. Itzhak Fried and colleagues
(Fried, Mateer, Ojeman, Wohns, and Fedio, 1982) had awake
seizure patients complete tasks measuring perception and
short-term memory for line orientation and unfamiliar
faces and identification of facial expressions during
seizure surgery while directly stimulating different
cortical areas. Stimulation of the nondominant posterior
portion of the superior temporal gyrus resulted in
impairment in perception (discrimination) and memory for
faces and line orientation. No location was found which
altered face memory alone. However, stimulation of the
posterior middle temporal gyrus resulted in impaired
labeling of facial expression only.
Summary
Two important conclusions can be drawn from studies
reviewed above. First, the ability to recognize familiar
faces or remember unfamiliar ones and appreciate facial
expression are clinically, behaviorally, and statistically
dissociable from perceptual ability as indicated by
performance on face discrimination tasks. Second, the
ability to recognize familiar faces and remember
unfamiliar faces is likewise dissociable from the ability
to recognize facial expression. These findings support
the existence of separate functional systems for
processing facial identity and expression.


25
Cognitive Model of Face Processing
The processes underlying the recognition of facial
identity and facial expression are themselves made up of a
number of subprocesses. A number of attempts have been
made to describe the stages of cognitive processing
involved in the perception and identification of faces.
Baddeley (1982) described a framework for discussing face
recognition which distinguished between two subdomains of
face processing, one concerned with the feature and
topography of the face (facial subdomain) and the other
concerned with their real or imagined semantic associates
(semantic subdomain). Unfamiliar faces would have some
limited access to information in the semantic subdomain
(as evidenced by the existence of facial stereotypes),
while familiar faces would "link with a broader domain of
our memory system than is the case with an unfamiliar
face" (p. 716).
The main themes of this framework, the distinction
between the processing of the physical features of a face
and its access to semantic information and the differences
between familiar and unfamiliar faces, have been amplified
and elaborated upon significantly by other British
researchers (Bruce, 1979, 1983; Bruce & Young, 1986;
Ellis, 1981, 1983; Hay & Young, 1982; Rhodes, 1985; Young,
Hay, & Ellis, 1985). The resultant model is presented in
Figure 1-1. As in Baddeley's framework, face perception


26
Expression
Identity Name
Label Codes
Codes
gi^e 1-1. A cognitive model of face processing showing
the hypothetical location of the functional lesions in
prosopagnosia (1) and RHD (2 and/or 3).


27
and recognition as described in this model is not a
unitary phenomenon but consists of dissociable
subprocesses which consist of more elaborate descriptions
of the processing within the facial and semantic
subdomains. The following section describes the model.
Hadyn Ellis (1986) notes, in relation to one version of
this model: "This model is a hybrid of those already in
existence and is offered as a heuristic rather a
definitive explanation" (p. 2). This statement is true in
relation to this model as well; consequently, there
remains some disagreement about aspects of it. Areas of
disagreement are also described below.
At its earliest stage, Structural Encoding results in
a set of codes which allow the discrimination of facial
from nonfacial patterns (Ellis, 1986). One might imagine
apperceptive prosopagnosia as a breakdown early in this
stage. Ultimately, Structural Encoding produces "an
interconnected set of descriptionssome describing the
configuration of the whole face, and some describing the
details of particular features" (Bruce & Young, 1986; p.
308). These structural codes range from the relatively
concrete, "viewer-centered" descriptions like those used
in the analysis of expression to more abstract
descriptions which provide information for the Face
Recognition Units (to be described below; Bruce & Young,
1986). The less changeable, more stable internal features
are more important in the recognition of familiar faces


while both internal and external (e.g., hairstyle)
features are important for recognition of unfamiliar faces
(Ellis, Shepherd, & Davies, 1979; Endo, Takahashi, &
Maruyama, 1984). The result of structural processing is a
set of structural codes representing a presented face.
These codes are the basis of recognition and expression
analysis, discussions of which follow.
A face is allegedly recognized when there is a match
between its encoded structural representation (the product
of structural encoding) and a stored structural code which
is referred to as a "Face Recognition Unit (FRU; Bruce &
Young, 1986; Young et al.. 1986). An FRU exists for each
face known to a person and functions such that "when we
look at a face, each FRU signals the degree of resemblance
between structural codes describing the seen face and the
description stored in the recognition unit. When a
certain degree of resemblance to one of these stored
descriptions is signalled we will think that the faces
seems familiar" (p. 124; Young, Hay, & Ellis, 1986).
However, Young et al. (1985) found that frequently a face
was seen as "familiar" but no other information could be
generated relating to that face. In fact, Young et al.
argue that the function of the FRU's and person identity
nodes (see below) is merely to signal how closely a
stimulus face resembles a known face, not to indicate that
it is that known face. Indicating recognition is actually
the function of an associated "cognitive" system. Thus, a


29
face can seem familiar and/or look like a known face, yet
not be mistaken for a known person.1
Activation of an FRU allows access to the information
contained within the Person Identity Nodes. According to
Bruce and Young (1986), the Person Identity nodes contain
"Identity-specific Semantic Codes11 which describe
everything we know about a familiar person including
things like occupation, hobbies, relatives, etc. It is
activation of these codes that gives a person a real sense
that he/she has actually recognized a person. As noted
above, however, Young et al. (1985) suggest that
activation of the person identity nodes simply reflects
activation of the related FRU. Another type of semantic
code, Visually-derived Semantic Code, exists which forms
the basis of judgements about sex, age, and nonobservable
attributes like honesty and intelligence for unfamiliar
faces. These judgements appear to be consistent across
observers from the same culture (e.g., Greve & Bauer,
1988; Klatzky et al., 1982a, 1982b; Secord, 1958) which
suggests that Visually-derived Semantic codes are the
product of considerable experience with faces. This data
is discussed in greater detail in a later section.
Bruce and Young consider these two codes to be
gualitatively different since the information in the
1 It is interesting to note the similarity between the
function of the FRU and the activity of the face-selective
neurons described by Baylis et al. (1985).


30
Visually-derived Semantic Code is more closely tied to the
actual physical features of a particular face, while the
information contained in the Identity-specific Semantic
Codes may bear little or no relationship to the actual
physical structure of the face. However, one must
question the need for a separate set of semantic codes for
unknown faces since an unfamiliar face may resemble, to a
greater or lesser degree, known faces and thus gain access
to the semantic information about those known faces in
direct relation to the degree of resemblance. This is
basically the view of Rhodes (1985). Put simply, what
this means is that an unfamiliar person who looks a lot
like Robert Redford may be categorized as an actor in an
occupational stereotype task. This position argues that
unknown faces access the semantic information about known
faces in direct relation to the degree of resemblance
between the unknown and known faces.
On the other hand an unfamiliar face may resemble not
an individual known face, but a composite based on
experience with many faces. Activation of the composite
or prototype FRU may then allow access to the semantic
information which the contributing faces have in common.
Support for the existence of abstract prototype
representations exists. Famous faces are more easily
recognized at a second presentation than are unfamiliar
faces (Ellis, Shepherd, & Davies, 1979; Klatzky & Forrest,
1984; Yarmey, 1971) which Klatzky and Forrest (1984)


31
attribute to the existence of a fairly abstract
representation of the familiar faces. Klatzky et al.
(1985a) found that highly stereotypic unfamiliar faces
were more easily recognized than low stereotypic
unfamiliar faces, a finding which was also attributed to
the existence of an abstract representation for each
particular stereotype. Thus, the "visually-derived
semantic codes" may reflect the activation of special
FRU's which are created as the result of experience with
many different faces. (For discussion of the differences
between prototype and exemplar models of classification,
see Abdi, 1986, and Medin and Schaffer, 1978.)
Bruce and Young (1986) suggest that the Identity-
specific Semantic Codes and output of the Expression
Analysis system (described below) contribute information
to the production of the Visually-derived Semantic Codes
and note that "future studies may allow the separation of
'visually derived semantic codes' into distinct types,
produced by different routes" (p. 313). Research by
Secord (1958) and Thornton (1943) present data supporting
the notion that facial expression contributes to the
Visually-derived Semantic Codes. This data will be
discussed in greater detail in a later section.
The Expression Analysis system also receives
structural code input and the product of processing is an
"Expression Code" (Expression Representation) which is
based on the shapes and postures of facial features. This


32
code allows faces to be categorized in terms of their
emotional expressions. The expression codes may be
thought of as part of the "right hemisphere iconic field"
described by Bowers and Heilman (1984). Activation of
both the Identity-Specific Semantic Codes and Expression
Codes allows access to Name Codes and Expression Label
Codes which then allow an appropriate name or label to be
generated. Activation of an appropriate name or
expression label can also allow access to the Person
Identity Nodes and Expression Codes, respectively. Yarmey
(1973) and Young et al. (1985) found that a face could
gain access to semantic information about a person while
the person's name remained unavailable which suggests that
the Name Codes are independent of the Identity-Specific
Semantic Codes. In other words, activation of a Person
Node does not guarantee access to names. Bowers and
Heilman (1984) and Rapcsak, Kasniac, and Rubens (1989)
both reported patients who could neither name facial
expressions nor select the expression named by the
examiner, though they could both discriminate same from
different expressions and match expressions. This
indicates that Expression Label Codes are also independent
of the Expression Codes.
At this point it is worth noting how prosopagnosia
and RHD fit into this cognitive model. It seems clear
that the FRU's are not being activated in prosopagnosia
because such activation is thought to produce a subjective


33
feeling of familiarity which prosopagnosics do not
experience. However, what seems equally clear is that the
structural information about familiar faces held in the
FRU's is intact because it influences performance on
indirect tasks. Similarly, structural encoding is grossly
unimpaired though subtle defects in some aspect of this
process exist. Thus, the observed impairment in
prosopagnosia appears to result from a functional
disconnection between the output of Structural Encoding
and the FRU's which prevents FRU activation; the FRU's and
the Identity-specific Semantic Codes remain intact and
support indirect task performance. The hypothesized
location of this functional lesion is indicated in Figure
1-1.
In right cerebral hemisphere disease an impairment in
the ability to recognize facial affect is commonly seen
while facial identity recognition is intact. Two
explanations for this finding are possible. First, the
facial expression processing defect could be the result of
damage to the expression codes themselves (Bowers &
Heilman, 1984). This condition is represented by a
functional lesion at #2 in Figure 1-1. Second, the
expression codes may be completely intact but disconnected
from the input of structural encoding (#3, Figure 1-1),
resulting in an expression recognition impairment roughly
analogous to the identity recognition defect seen in
prosopagnosia. Thus, the expression representations would


34
be unavailable to conscious access but their presence
should influence performance on indirect tasks. At this
point there is no data which would allow us to
discriminate between these two possibilities.
Extraction of Nonobservable Attributes
The previous sections have focused primarily on the
processes involved in extracting identity and expression
information from faces. However, there is a great deal of
information conveyed by a face that does not yield
specific conclusions about its identity or affective
state. Examples within the physical domain include sex,
age, race, and attractiveness. Decisions regarding these
attributes can be made relatively effortlessly and show a
high degree of agreement across judges (Dion, Berscheid, &
Walster, 1972). The physical features of a face can also
be used, in the absence of other information, to make
subjective judgements about nonobservable characteristics
of the person including psychological traits, potential
behavior, likeability, or occupational status and these
judgements are also made with a surprising degree of
consistency across observers (Dion, et al.. 1972;
Goldstein, Chance, & Gilbert, 1984; Klatzky, et al..
1982a, 1982b; Secord, 1958; Thornton, 1943).
These nonobservable attributes can be roughly divided
into two general categories. 'Personality" attributes
refer to potential behavior of and quality of the social


35
interaction with the target person. The type of
information that goes into these inferences may be the
kind of data which drives the "first impression." This
research tends to be older and has mainly been the focus
of social psychology researchers. The second type of
nonobservable attribute refers to the occupational
category to which a particular face appears to belong.
Occupational category attributions refer, not to the
actual occupation of the person presented, but to the
category which is inferred simply on the basis of the
physical features of the face. The literature related to
this issue is newer and its purpose has been more to help
elucidate the nature of the cognitive processes involved
in face memory.
Personality Trait Attributions
In one of the earliest studies of "personality"
attribution, Thornton (1943) had subjects rate faces in
terms of kindliness, intelligence, industriousness,
honesty in money matters, dependability, and sense of
humor. He found that ratings of the same face at repeated
presentations within judges were quite consistent.
Moreover, he found that ratings of the same face by two
different groups of judges did not differ significantly.
He also noted that smiling persons tended to be rated
higher in terms of kindliness and sense of humor than the
same person not smiling. This finding suggests that


facial expression recognition plays a role in some
personality judgements.
36
Secord (1958) indicated that one finding repeatedly
confirmed in his work was that judges agree in attributing
certain personality impressions to faces with particular
physiognomic cues and argued that "the perceiver
selectively attends to certain aspects of the face, and
used ready-made interpretations" (p. 303). Thus, in
females the amount of lipstick related positively to
sexuality while bowed lips produce the impression of being
conceited, demanding, immoral, and receptive to the
attentions of men. Older men were seen as more
distinguished, responsible, and refined. Additionally,
darker skin was associate with higher ratings of
hostility, boorishness, unfriendliness, and lack of sense
of humor. Finally, he argued that commonly agreed-upon
facial expression account for some portion of the
impression which are formed in looking at a photograph.
Secord concluded that cultural factors contribute to the
attribution of personality characteristics in several
ways. "First, the culture places selective emphasis upon
certain cues; e.g., the amount of lipstick a woman wears
is more important that the shape of her ears. Second, the
culture provides ready-made categories which consist of
denotative cues and associated personality attributes, as
in age-sex roles, or in ethnic stereotypes. Finally,
various forms of facial expression have become established


as having at least partly agreed-upon meanings in our
culture (p. 313).
37
Occupational Category Attributions
Klatzky et al. (1982b) demonstrated that normals can
extract occupational stereotype information from faces
that is consistent across judges. She asked students to
describe mental prototypes associated with thirteen
particular occupational categories (e.g., athlete, farmer,
watchmaker) and rate each category with regard to the
goodness of their mental prototype. Faces fitting the
prototype descriptions were then selected from various
sources. A new set of students were then presented with
each face and the thirteen occupational categories. Their
task was to indicate the three categories to which each
face most likely belonged. The results indicated that the
students could, indeed, reliably place the faces into
their designated a priori category based strictly on
features of the face.
In a second study (Klatzky et al., 1982a)
demonstrated that occupational category labels could prime
a face/nonface decision using strong category exemplars as
targets. These exemplars were selected based on the data
from the study described above. Subjects were then
presented an occupational category label followed by two
halves of a face and were asked to indicate whether the
two halves were from the same face. In the Congruent


38
condition the two halves were from the same face and that
face was from the same category as the prime; in the
Incongruent condition, the two halves were of the same
face and that face was from a different category as the
prime. The nonfaces were composed of two halves of
different low exemplar faces. There was also a no prime
condition in which the targets were preceded by the word
"Blank." The results indicated that the prime
significantly interfered with the face/nonface decision in
the incongruent condition but did not affect the congruent
decision. Thus Klatzky et al. (1982a, 1982b) demonstrated
direct and indirect access to occupational category
information in faces with normals.
Summary
Two important things should be gleaned from the
studies into the attributions of personality
characteristics and occupational categories to unknown
faces. First, judges are able to make these attributions
with remarkable consistency. Second, as Secord (1958)
emphasized, these attributions are based on shared
cultural experience which has resulted in ready-made
categories for particular features or configurations of
features. The implication is that two people from the
same culture would be able to extract from a stimulus face
information which would lead to similar judgements
concerning nonobservable attributes of the face.
Conceptually, inferences about the nonobservable


39
attributes of an unknown persons based on physical
appearance are a form of stereotype. Thus, these two
types of attributions (personality and occupation) will be
referred to hereafter as personality and occupational
stereotypes.
Purpose of this Study
Bruce and Young (1986) and Young, Hay, and Ellis
(1986) suggest that the basis of these stereotypes are the
Visually-derived Semantic Codes. As noted earlier, Bruce
and Young believe that both expression and identity-
related processes contribute to the creation of Visually-
derived Semantic Codes and that it may be possible to
separate the codes into distinct types that are a function
of different processing routes. That is, different
inferences about nonobservable attributes may rely more or
less heavily on the processes or codes involved in the
judgement of either facial identity or expression. Put
another way, if the ability to extract a particular
nonobservable attribute is based primarily on information
derived from the expression processing system, then damage
to that system should result in impairment in expression
recognition as well as the ability to make the relevant
inferences. The same scenario could be imagined for the
ability to extract nonobservable attributes that are a
function of the identity system. This logic works well
going from a model to hypotheses, however, going from real


40
data to a hypothetical model is more complex.
Associations between impaired abilities in a brain damaged
individual can never be conclusive evidence that the two
abilities are supported by the same system since, at the
least, a single lesion may damage two independent but
anatomically proximate systems. Behavioral dissociations
within individual patients and across types of patient
groups provide much more conclusive information about the
structure of the relevant cognitive systems, but even
inferences based on such data must be made with care
(Shallice, 1988).
The purpose of this study is to examine the
contribution of expression and identity information to the
formation of different types of Visually-derived Semantic
Codes by assessing the ability of neurologically normal
individuals, right- and left-hemisphere damaged
individuals (NHD, RHD, and LHD, respectively), and a
prosopagnosic to make subjective judgements about
personality characteristics and occupational category
based solely on the qualities of stimulus faces.2
Personality and occupational stereotypes were
selected for two reasons. First, there is a relatively
large body of literature concerning both occupational and
2 ,
This does not mean that subjects will be expected to
guess the actual occupation or personality type of each
face. They must simply judge, based on the appearance of
the face, the occupation or personality type of which the
face is normatively considered most exemplary.


41
personality stereotypes. Second, both intuition and
research (e.g., Secord, 1958; Thornton, 1943) suggest that
the two types of stereotypes may be differentially
supported by the expression and identity processing
systems. Thus, we will assess functioning in the
following four domains of face processing ability; 1)
recognition of facial identity; 2) recognition of facial
expression; 3) identification of personality stereotypes;
and, 4) identification of occupational stereotypes.
As suggested by the evidence of implicit recognition
of face identity in prosopagnosia, direct measures of any
of the above domains of face processing may be
insufficient to fully evaluate the contents of memory or
the status of the memory representations. Indirect tests
may provide evidence that the contents of memory are
intact but unavailable to conscious access or that, in
fact, the representations are functionally disrupted.
Additionally, the extension of the dissociations between
affective expression and identity processing to indirect
measures would be important support for the view that
different mechanisms underlie those functions. Thus
indirect tests have also been included.
These tasks were based on Young, Ellis, Flude,
McWeeny, and Hay's (1986) name categorization interference
paradigm which formed the methodological basis for DeHaan
et al.'s (1986) experiment with a prosopagnosic. As in
DeHaan et al.1s (1986) study, Young, Ellis, Flude,


42
McWeeny, and Hay (1986) presented familiar faces paired
with a name in a speech bubble which either belonged to
the person shown, a different person from the same
occupational category as the person shown, or a different
person from a different occupational category. The
subjects were asked to categorize names in terms of
occupational category and vocal response latency was
measured. The presence of the face interfered with name
categorization but only when the face and name were from
different categories. Thus, with normals, the knowledge
that the person named was from a different occupational
category than the person pictured (Incongruent condition)
interfered with their ability to classify the name in
terms of occupation relative to the condition in which the
face and name were of the same person (Congruent
condition). The performance of prosopagnosics (DeHaan et
al., 1986, in press; see earlier discussion) on this task
indicates that the conscious ability to name or categorize
the faces is not necessary for normal performance.
Thus, semantic knowledge about the person pictured
influences the amount of time it takes to semantically
categorize the name with which it was presented as
indicated by a Congruent condition reaction time that is
faster than the Incongruent condition reaction time. When
this effect occurs in association with evidence that the
ability to directly categorize the face along the same
semantic dimension is compromised, it constitutes evidence


43
that the relevant face and semantic representations are
none-the-less intact. When a person is impaired on both
direct and indirect tasks the interpretation is more
complex.3 The inference that failure on both direct and
indirect tasks of the same ability in a head injured
patient indicates that the relevant representations are
globally unavailable is not logically tenable by itself
and can never be proven unequivocally. However, it may be
possible to generate enough circumstantial evidence to
make that interpretation viable.
Hypotheses
Direct Tests
Based on the literature reviewed above we can make
two predictions concerning the outcome for measures of
direct access to facial identity, expression, personality
stereotype, and occupational stereotype information (see
Table 1-1). First, since NHD and LHD patients do not
3 Roediger (1990) has pointed out that poor performance
on indirect tasks can occur because the initial mode of
processing of a stimulus is different from its mode of
presentation at test. For example, when the target
information is initially processed conceptually, in terms
of its meaning, while the indirect task makes significant
use of the perceptual features of the target then
performance on the indirect task may be worse relative to
direct task performance (e.g., Jacoby, 1983). On the
other hand, performance on one indirect task can be
impaired relative to performance on another indirect task
if the stimuli used in the initial exposure are different
in form on the test (e.g., initial exposure to a picture
of a house, then test with the word "house" compared to
testing with the picture of the house; e.g., Weldon &
Roediger, 1987, experiment 4).


44
typically show impairment on direct tests of face
processing ability, we expect that these two groups will
perform normally on all four measures. Second, we expect
that RHD patients will be impaired in processing facial
expression and unimpaired on tests of facial identity
recognition; the converse should be true for
prosopagnosics. Thus, for the direct tests, only the
outcomes of the RHD patients and the prosopagnosic on the
personality and occupational stereotype identification
tests remain to be determined.
Table 1-1
Outcome Assumptions Based on a Review of the Previous
Research for Each Domain of Face Information
Type of Test
Subjects Identity Expression Personality Occupation
Normal + + + +
LHD + + + +
RHD
+
PA
+
7
7
Note. LHD = left hemisphere disease patients; RHD = right
hemisphere disease patients; PA = prosopagnosia.
In an attempt to be comprehensive one could generate
all the possible outcomes for the two groups on the
remaining two tests. However, doing so would likely add
little to our understanding of this issue. The
alternative is to describe and test the model(s) which


45
seeitt(s) most theoretically and intuitively sound. From a
theoretical perspective, Bruce and Young (1986) argue that
judgements concerning nonobservable attributes (e.g.,
facial stereotypes) are based on the information contained
in the Visually-derived Semantic Codes and that all face
processing systems contribute to their creation. If their
view is accurate, then intuitively it seems that the
expression processing system would be the primary
contributor of information to the Visually-derived
semantic codes underlying personality stereotype
identification while the identity processing system would
supply significantly more information for the creation of
the codes which support occupational stereotype judgments.
The model depicting these relationships is presented in
Figure 1-3. This intuitive position is partially
supported by the data of Thornton (1943) and Secord (1958)
who report that facial expression made an important (but
not the only) contribution to personality attribution.
In concrete terms this model suggests that we apply
certain personality descriptors to unknown persons based
on their facial expression. That is, because he/she is
smiling we may assume he/she is friendly or kind. On the
other hand, if he/she is frowning we may make more
negative personality inferences about them. Similarly, we
may infer that someone looks like they belong to a
particular occupational category because he/she is similar
in appearance to someone we have encountered, either in


46
person or through the media, who works in that job (i.e.,
call someone a laborer because he looks like your
construction worker cousin or Archie Bunker). Thus, the
model in Figure 3-1 suggests the RHD patients will be
impaired both on judgement of facial expression and
personality while remaining unimpaired on tests of
identity recognition and occupational stereotype judgment.
The prosopagnosic, of course, should show the opposite
pattern.
Indirect Tests
To the extent that the relevant facial
representations are disrupted, performance on both the
direct and indirect measures tapping the ability to
process that type of facial stimulus will be impaired.
For example, Bowers and Heilman (1984) have suggested that
failure of right-hemisphere patients to overtly categorize
facial expression may result from destruction or
dysfunction of the facial expression representations. If
this is the case then failure on both direct and indirect
expression recognition tests should be observed. If, on
the other hand, the representations are intact, right-
hemisphere patients should perform "normally" on the
indirect expression tests yet remain impaired on the
direct measures.
A corollary of the above hypothesis is that if two
abilities (e.g., famous face recognition and stereotype


47
i
Figure 1-2. Hypothetical cognitive model of face
processing.


48
identification) are based on the same information,
performance on measures of the two abilities should be
correlated. For example, since the disability in
prosopagnosia appears to be one of conscious access to
intact facial representations, if either or both of the
stereotype processing abilities is supported by the
identity processing system then performance on indirect
measures of that stereotype processing ability should be
unimpaired. If, on the other hand, the stereotype
processing ability requires access to expression
representations which are dysfunctional, thus impairing
performance on indirect expression tests, that stereotype
processing ability should be likewise impaired.
Consequently, we predict that the RHD patients should
remain unimpaired on the identity and occupational
stereotype tasks, and should be impaired on the
personality and expression tasks jLf the contents of the
Expression system are unusable, otherwise they should
perform normally. The prosopagnosic should perform
normally on all the indirect tasks.


CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND RESULTS
Methods
Subjects
Prosopacmosic Patient. L.F. (who has been reported
frequently; e.g., Bauer 1982, 1984; Bauer & Trobe, 1984;
Greve & Bauer, 1989, 1990) is a 47-year-old male with 16
years of education who, in 1979, sustained bilateral
occipitotemporal hematomas as the result of a motorcycle
accident which left him with profound and stable
prosopagnosia, decreased color vision, an altitudinal
hemianopia with a left inferior congruous quadrantanopia,
and decreased emotional responsiveness to visual stimuli.
See Table 2-1 for a comparison of Our prosopagnosic1s age,
education, WAIS-R Vocabulary Scaled Score, and time post
injury (TPI) with the other patient and control groups.
Unilateral Stroke Patients. The stroke patients were
ten right hemisphere damaged patients (RHD; mean age = 64.0,
sd = 5.14; mean education = 12.0, sd = 3.62) and ten left
hemisphere damaged patients (LHD; mean age = 61.0, sd =
8.53; mean education = 12.6, sd = 2.75) who were
participants in ongoing neuropsychological studies at the
Gainesville Veterans Administration Medical Center. All
49


50
Table 2-1
Comparisons of Patient and Control Groups on Demographic
Variables. WAIS-R Vocabulary Score, and Time Post Injury
(TPI)
Variable
Group
Age
Education
Vocabulary
TPI
Young
m
sd
43.13a
2.69
16.4 6a
2.32
13.60a
2.97
N/A
L.F.
47ab
16ab
13ab
129.0a
Older
m
sd
65.80b
5.02
14.73ab
2.81
12.64ab
2.84
N/A
LHD
m
61.00b
12.60b
8.10c
98.1a
sd
8.54
2.76
2.23
87.6
RHD
m
64.00b
12.00b
10.50bc
43.4a
sd
5.14
3.62
2.55
64.6
ahc within each column,
significantly different
groups with the same
at p < .05.
letter are
patients had sustained a single unilateral stroke, or if a
second stroke occurred it included the area of the original
stroke. No patients with lesions of two or more areas of
the brain were included. Table 2-1 provides specific
demographic data for these subject compared to control
subjects and Table 2-2 lists relevant demographic data and
lesion location for each stroke patient.
Normal Controls. Fifteen adults aged 40-50 (Young;
mean age =43.13, sd = 2.69) were recruited from the
community to serve as controls for the prosopagnosic and
fifteen adults aged 60-70 (Older; mean age = 65.8, sd =
5.02), also from the community, served as controls for the


51
Table 2-2
Demographic and Lesion Locationl Data for Individual Stroke
Patients
Left Hemisphere Disease Patients
Patient
Age
Ed
Sex
TPI
F
P
T
0
LI
52
14
F
18

+
+

L2
63
12
M
276
o
o
o
o
L3
56
7
M
11
+
+
+
+
L4
60
13
M
33
o
o
o
o
L5
73
14
M
143

+
+

L6
65
15
M
11


+

L7
74
14
M
83
-
+
+
+
L8
57
16
M
192
+
+
+
-
L9
47
12
M
84
+
+
+
-
L10
63
9
Right
M 120
Hemisphere
+
Disease
+ +
Patients
Patient
Age
Ed
Sex
TPI
F
P
T
0
R1
66
8
M
12

+
+
_
R2
68
11
M
20
+
+
+
-
R3
55
12
M
6
o
o
o
o
R4
63
12
M
162
+
+
+
-
R5
67
16
M
38
+
+
+
-
R6
67
13
M
13
+
+
+
R7
55
8
M
8
+
+
+
-
R8
65
12
M
7
o
o
o
o
R9
64
8
M
1
+
+
+
-
RIO
70
19
M
167
+
+
+
-
Note. 1
TPI =
time
post
inj ury;
F = frontal;
p =
parietal;
= temporal; 0 = occipital
1 Lesion location refers to the major brain structures
involved in the stroke. Size of lesion is not implied by
the number of structures involved. ('+' means that structure
contains part of the lesion; 'o' means the lesion has not
been localized beyond the hemisphere level)
stroke patients. All participants were born and raised in
the United States which insured a relatively circumscribed
cultural base


Group Comparisons. Individual one-way ANOVA's were
conducted to evaluate group effects for age, education,
WAIS-R Vocabulary scaled score, and TPI. A significant
52
Group effect was found for age (F [3,46] = 53.15, p = .0001)
with the Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsh Multiple F post hoc test
(REGWF; Ryan, 1959, 1960; Einot & Gabriel, 1975; Welsch,
1977) indicating that the Young control group was, in fact,
significantly younger than the Older control group and both
stroke groups. No differences were found between the Older
control group and the two stroke groups. L.F.'s age was not
significantly different from the Young Control group.1
Significant Group differences were found for education (F
[3,46] = 6.37, p = .0011) with the REGWF indicating that the
two control groups were not significantly different from
each other, and that the Younger control group was
significantly better educated than the two stroke groups.
Educational background of the Older control group and the
two stroke groups did not differ. L.F. also did not differ
from the Young Control group. A significant group effect (F
[3,45] = 9.47, p = .0001)2 was also found for WAIS-R
1 Except where indicated, L.F.'s scores were compared to
the means of the Younger control group using 95% confidence
intervals derived from the formula: Cl = m + ts; where m =
sample mean, t = the t-value for a give alpha level divided
by 2, and s = the sample standard deviation. Confidence
intervals were calculated using the transformed data and
reconverted to original units for presentation.
2
One Older Control subject who had worked as a
psychological technician and who was familiar with the WAIS-
R was not given the Vocabulary subtest.


53
Vocabulary scaled scores. The REGWF indicated that the two
control groups did not differ, the Older control group and
the RHD patients did not differ, and the two stroke groups
did not differ. Again, L.F. did not differ significantly
from his control group. Finally, the two stroke groups did
not differ significantly in months since injury (t = 1.5893,
p = .1294). Nor was L.F.'s TPI significantly different from
the stroke patients.
To summarize the findings of this set of analyses, the
Younger control group and L.F. did not significantly differ
on any of the three variables. Additionally, the Older
control group did not differ significantly from the two
stroke groups on age or education, but did differ from the
LHD group on WAIS-R Vocabulary scaled score. However, the
RHD patients did not differ significantly from the LHD
patients on vocabulary score. The patient groups did not
differ in TPI. Thus the patients are well matched to their
respective control groups.
Tests of Face Memory and Perception
Milner Facial Recognition Test. In the Milner Facial
Recognition Test (Milner, 1968) the subject was instructed
to study an array of 12 unfamiliar male and female faces for
45 seconds. Following a distraction period of 90 seconds
the subject was presented with an array of 25 faces which
contained the original 12. The subject's task was to select
the twelve faces he/she remembered from the original array.


Test of Facial Recognition-Short Form. The Test of
Facial Recognition-Short Form (Levin, Hamsher, & Benton,
54
1975) is a test of face perception, rather than memory, in
which the subject was presented with a single front view of
a face which he/she must match with one face in an array of
six faces. The first six arrays contained one view which
matched the stimulus face exactly. The arrays of the
remaining seven items contained three photographs of the
stimulus person taken under different lighting conditions or
from a different angle. For these items the subject
selected the three faces which were photographs of the same
stimulus person. The total score is the number of correct
out of 54 after correction for age and education.
Identity Discrimination. Identity Discrimination is
the first subtest of the Florida Facial Affect Test (see
f
below) and consists of twenty vertically arranged pairs of
female faces with neutral expressions and whose hair is
covered with a surgical cap. Half of the pairs consist of
identical photographs of the same person and half consist of
photographs of two different persons. The subject's task is
to indicate whether the photographs are of the same or
different persons.
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information
Florida Facial Affect Test. The Florida Facial Affect
Test (FFAT) is part of the Florida Affect Battery-Revised
(Blonder, Bowers, & Heilman, 1991) which was designed to


55
assess receptive processing of emotional faces and prosody,
and consists of three parts. Part I, the Florida Facial
Affect Test, is comprised of five face perception subtests.
Subtest 1 was described above. Subtest 2 (Facial Affect
Discrimination) measures the patient's ability to
discriminate emotional facial expressions across different
persons. Twenty pairs of vertically arranged faces are
presented. The two faces in each pair are never the same
person but for half the pairs, the two people have the same
expression and for half they have different expressions.
The subject's task is to indicate whether the facial
expressions are the same or different. In Subtest 3 (Facial
Affect Naming) twenty individual faces with happy, sad,
angry, frightened, or neutral expressions are present to the
patient who must then name the emotional expression on the
face. In Subtest 4 (Facial Affect Selection) the patient
must select from a set of five faces the one face bearing
the expression named by the examiner. Finally, in Subtest 5
(Facial Affect Matching) the patient must select the face
among a set of five which bears the same expression as a
stimulus face.
Stereotype and Identity Rating Tests. Three rating
tests were specifically designed for this study to measure
direct access to occupational and personality stereotype and
face identity information. The Occupational and Personality
Stereotype rating tests each consisted of 10 faces presented
twice, once each with its "correct" category and "incorrect"


56
category. The "correct" category was the one into which it
was placed most frequently by an independent sample of
subjects while the "incorrect" category was the one into
which it was placed least frequently (see Appendix A for
details). The test of face identity contained 10 famous
faces presented twice, once with its correct name and once
with the name of another person famous at about the same
time but from a different occupational category. In all
tests half of the faces were paired first with the correct
label and half with the incorrect label.
The subject's task was to rate how well each face and
its associated label (occupational category, personality
descriptor, or name, depending on the test) matched using a
9-point Likert scale. Specifically, in the Occupational
Stereotype Rating test the subjects rated how much they
thought the person shown looked like he belonged to the
associated occupational category (1 = "very much no"; 9 =
"very much yes"). In the Personality Stereotype Rating test
the subjects rated how much they thought the person shown
would be described using the personality descriptor
presented (again, 1 = "very much no"; 9 = "very much yes").
Finally, on the Identity Rating test, the subjects indicated
how confident they were that the face and name went together
(1 = "very confident no"; 9 = "very confident yes"). Thus,
if a subject was perfectly accurate, he/she would produce a
mean of 9 for the 10 "correct" face-label pairing and a mean
of 1 for the 10 "incorrect" face-label pairings. The


57
magnitude of the difference between the two means thus
indicated how well they were able to discriminate between
"correct" and "incorrect" pairings.
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information
The tests of indirect access to face information
consisted of four interference tasks (Young, Ellis, Flude,
McWeeny, & Hay, 1986) addressing access to information about
perceived occupational and personality category membership,
emotional facial expression, and facial identity. All four
tasks consisted of 40 trials (10 congruent, 10 incongruent,
20 control) with five practice trials preceding each test.
In the Congruent Condition, the label following the facial
photograph was consistent with the face. For example, for
the Occupation-Category and the Personality-Descriptor
Interference Tasks, the category or descriptor presented
would be the one into which the face was placed most
frequently (see Appendix A); in the Expression-Label
Interference Task, the emotional state of the stimulus
person as implied by her expression would be accurately
described by the word which followed the photograph (e.g., a
smiling face would be followed by the word "happy");
finally, in the Face-Identity Interference Task, a
photograph of a famous person would be followed by that
person's name (e.g., a photograph of Lyndon Johnson would be
followed by the name "Lyndon Johnson"). In the Incongruent
Condition, the face and label did not match. In the Control


58
Condition, the face was replaced with a blank gray rectangle
with the same dimensions as the face photographs. Each gray
blank was followed by one of the labels used in the relevant
test such that each label paired with a photograph appeared
at least once with a blank. Trials of each condition were
distributed in a pseudo-random order throughout the test
such that half the faces were presented in the congruent
condition first.
All interference test stimuli were aligned such that
the fixation dot, eyes of the face, and word were all at the
same vertical position on the tachistoscope card, thus
allowing central fixation without scanning during stimulus
presentation. The stimuli were presented on a Gerbrands
G1135 (T-4A) four-field tachistoscope with a G1151 Gerbrands
Automatic Card Changer and reaction time was measured with a
voice activated millisecond timer. A trial consisted of a
500ms presentation of the fixation dot, followed by a face
or blank for 500ms, after which the label (or name) was
presented for 3000ms. For the Occupation, Personality, and
Identity tasks the subject would "yes" or "no" (based upon
criteria described below) upon the appearance of the word.
For the Expression task the word was simply read as quickly
as possible. The subjects were always instructed to focus
on the word, ignoring the facial stimuli (including the
blanks).
Decisions were based on the following criteria. For
the Face-Occupation Category Interference task, subjects


59
were to say "yes" if the occupational category was an
athletic job (quarterback, shortstop) and "no" for any other
occupation (accountant, doctor, laborer, truck driver). For
the Face-Personality Descriptor task they said "yes" if the
i
word described a "bad guy" (aggressive, intolerant) and "no"
if it described anyone else (kind, sociable, shy). In the
Expression-Label Interference task, subjects simply read the
emotion label as it appeared (rather than making a decision
about it, as in the other tests). Finally, in the Face-
Identity Interference task, they responded "yes" when the
name presented was that of a politician.
General Procedure
Subjects entered the laboratory and completed the
informed consent form. They were given the instructions and
allowed to review the words for each interference task
immediately prior to the administration of each. Following
the completion of the interference tasks, the Vocabulary
subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised
(WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981) was completed. The face memory and
perception tests and the tests of direct access to face
information were administered last. The following is a
summary of the order of test administration: 1) Face-
Occupation Category Interference; 2) Face-Personality
Descriptor Interference; 3) Expression-Label Interference;
4) Face-Identity Interference; 5) WAIS-R Vocabulary; 6)
Milner Facial Recognition Test; 7) Benton Test of Facial


60
Recognition; 8) Occupation Stereotype Rating; 9) Personality
Stereotype Rating; 10) Face Identity Rating; and, 11)
Florida Facial Affect Test. Following completion of all
tests the subjects were debriefed. All control subjects and
stroke patients were tested once. L.F. was tested four
times to ensure a more reliable evaluation.
Results3
Tests of Face Memory and Perception
The scores for the Milner Facial Recognition Test
(Milner; number of correct recognitions out of 12), Benton
Test of Facial Recognition (Benton; mean corrected long form
score), and the FFAT Identity Discrimination Subtest
(percent correct) were analyzed in separate one-way (Group)
ANOVAs. A significant group effect was found for the Milner
score (F [3,46] = 3.71, p = .0180) with the REGWF indicating
that the two stroke groups did not significantly differ, nor
were there differences among the two control groups and the
LHD group. However, the RHD group performed significantly
worse than the two control groups. L.F.' s performance on
the Milner was in the impaired range according to Milner's
3
All descriptive statistics and analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were computed using SAS Version 6 (SAS Institute,
Inc.) on a Compac 386 personal computer. Scores represented
as proportions (Benton, Milner, and all FFAT scores) were
transformed using the arcsin square-root transformation to
stabilize the variance (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985).
All reaction times were log transformed to reduce skewness
(Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985). All transformed
variables were reconverted to the original units for
presentation purposes.


61
suggested cut-offs (Milner, 1968). For the Benton,
significant differences were also found, F (3,46) = 15.18, p
= .0001. The REGWF indicated that the RHD patients
performed significantly worse than all other groups and that
the LHD patients performed worse than the Younger controls.
On the Benton, L.F. performed within the normal range
according to Benton's norms (Benton, Hamsher, Varney, &
Spreen, 1983). On the second test of face perception, FFAT
Identity Discrimination, the RHD group was significantly
worse (F [3,46] = 11.99, p = .0001) than the other three
groups and L.F. (who was 100% correct) did not differ from
the controls or the LHD group. Thus, the RHD patients were
impaired relative to the LHD and NHD subjects on all three
tests, while the prosopagnosic was only impaired on the test
of face memory. Clearly, basic face perception is a problem
for the RHD patients. See Table 2-3 for details.
Table 2-3
Means for the Tests of Face Memory and Perception
Group
Milner
Younger
8.40
(1.50)a
L.F.
7.00
(1.00)b
Older
8.60
(1.55)a
LHD
7.60
(1.17)a
RHD
6.80
(1.55)b
FFAT Identity
Benton Discrimination
48.60 (3.69)a 98 (3.16)a
43.50 (3.00)a 100 (0.00)a
47.07 (2.87)ab 96 (5.49)a
43.80 (4.69)b 93 (6.75)a
36.80 (5.13)C 78 (16.1)b
ab column means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05.


62
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information
Florida Facial Affect Test. The remainder of the FFAT
subtests (Affect Discrimination, Naming, Selection, and
Matching) address affective processing and were submitted to
a 4 (Group) x 4 (Subtest) mixed-block ANOVA which revealed a
significant Group by Subtest interaction, F [9,138] = 3.06,
p = .0023. Follow-up ANOVAs and REGWFs evaluating group
differences on each subtest indicated that for Affect
Discrimination and Affect Naming the Control groups
performed significantly better than the stroke groups (F
[3,46] = 13.10, p = .0001 and F [3,46] = 8.15, p = .0002,
respectively). For both tests, L.F. did not differ
significantly from his control group. For Affect Selection,
the RHD group performed significantly worse than the LHD
group and from controls, F (3,46) = 14.44, p = .0001, and
L.F. performed significantly worse than the Younger Control
group. Finally, for Affect Matching, the RHD group was
significantly worse than the LHD group which was
significantly worse than the control groups, F (3,46) =
19.61, p = .0001. Again, L.F. did not differ from the
Younger control group.
When Subtest differences were evaluated within each
Group the following results occurred. The Young control
group scored significantly higher on Affect Selection than
on Affect Matching which was significantly higher than both
Affect Discrimination and Affect Naming (F [3,42] = 11.06, p
= .0001). For the Older control group only Affect Selection


63
and Affect Discrimination differed significantly, with
Affect Selection being higher (F [3,42] = 3.68, p = .0194).
For the LHD patients Affect Selection was significantly
higher than the other subtests (F [3,27] = 11.19, p =
.0001). Finally, for the RHD patients Affect Selection was
performed significantly better than Affect Discrimination
and Affect Matching and Affect Naming was performed
significantly better than Affect Matching. Refer to Table
2-4 for a summary of these findings. In general, the
prosopagnosic was unimpaired on these tests while the RHD
patients differed from all other groups on Affect Selection
Table 2-4
Mean Percent Correct for the Florida Facial Affect Test
Affect Discrimination. Naming, Selection, and Matching
Subtests
Subtest
Group
Discrim.
Naming
Selection
Matching
Younger
in
93.0ax
92.7ax
99.3bx
96.7cY
sd
6.21
6.23
1.76
4.08
L.F.
in
87.5X
87.5X
93.8X
85.0X
sd
6.45
6.45
4.79
4.08
Older
m
90.7ax
95.3abx
97.3bx
93 oabx
sd
8.42
5.81
4.17
9.02
LHD
m
79.5a¥
82.5a¥
94.0bx
85.0^
sd
6.43
13.79
8.10
10.00
RHD
m
71.5acV
80.5abY
83.oby
63.5CZ
sd
12.7
8.96
12.95
15.47
XYZ column means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
abc row means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05


64
and Affect Matching. Thus, on direct tests of expression
processing the prosopagnosic was relatively unimpaired while
the RHD patients were relatively impaired. Figure 2-1
presents these findings graphically.
Occupational Stereotype Rating Test. The mean rating
for correct pairings and the mean rating for incorrect
pairings were submitted to a 4 (Group) x 2 (Condition)
mixed-block ANOVA for each test.4 (See Table 2-5 for
overall results of this analysis and Figure 2-2 for
graphical presentation.) For the Occupation Stereotype
Rating test there were significant main effects of Group (F
[3,45] = 3.68, p = .0188) and Condition (F [1,45] = 155.40,
p = .0001) but the Group by Condition interaction was not
significant (F [3,45] = 1.99, p = .1287). Post hoc testing
indicated that, as expected, the Correct condition was
yielded significantly larger values than the Incorrect
condition across groups indicating that all subjects were
able to discriminate the correct from incorrect pairings.
Additionally, the overall ratings for the Younger control
group were significantly higher than those for the Older
control group, but neither control group differed
significantly from the stroke groups. L.F.'s mean rating
for the Correct condition (5.38) was significantly lower
than that of the Younger control subjects (95% Cl: 6.05 to
4 One LHD patient was unable to complete the Occupation and
Personality Stereotype Rating tests because of comprehension
difficulties, and was not included in these analyses.


65
Subject Group
Young Controls
Prosopagnosic
Old Controls
-B- LHD Patients
RHD Patients
Figure 2-1. Performance on the FFAT Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests. = RHD < LHD; #
= stroke patients < controls
8.83) while his mean rating for the Incorrect condition
fell within the 95% Cl for the Younger control group (95%
CIS 1.49 to 6.85). In fact, both of L.F.'s scores fell
within the 95% Cl for the Incorrect condition suggesting
that there was no significant difference between the two.
L.F. was assessed four times and t-tests comparing the
Correct to Incorrect condition were never significant (see
Table 2-6) at alpha < .05. Thus, only the prosopagnosic
showed impaired ability to extract occupational stereotype
information from unfamiliar faces.


66
Table 2-5
Simle Effect and
Grand Mean
Ratinas for
the Occupational
Stereotype
Ratina
Test
Condition
Group
Group
Correct
Incorrect
Grand Mea:
Young
IQ
7.44x
4.17*
5.81a
sd
.65
1.25
1.93
L.F.
IQ
5.38*
4.83*
5.10
sd
.31
. 33
.42
Old
m
6.67
3.40
5.04b
sd
1.14
.75
1.93
LHD
IQ
7.08
4.37
5.73ab
sd
.91
.87
1.64
RHD
m
6.34
4.50
5.42ab
sd
1.43
1.23
1.60
Condition
Grand Mean
IQ
sd
6.92a
1.10
4.04
1.12
Note. The interaction in this model was not significant at
alpha < .05.
ab main effect means with the same letter are not
significantly different
x* L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same letter
within a condition when L.F.'s score falls within the 95% Cl
for that condition
Personality Stereotype Rating Test. For the
Personality Rating test, the Group main effect was not
significant (F [3,45] = 2.14, p = .1081) but the Condition
main effect was significant (F [1,45] = 145.41, p = .0001);
the Group by Condition interaction approached significance
(F [3,45] = 2.56, p = .0670). Again, post hoc testing
indicated that the Correct condition was significantly


67
9
7
5
3
1
Figure 2-2. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Occupational Stereotype test.
higher than the Incorrect condition (see Table 2-7 and
Figure 2-3). L.F.'s scores (Correct = 6.13; Incorrect =
3.8) fell within the appropriate 95% Cl's for the Younger
control group (Correct: 4.40 to 8.86; Incorrect: 1.52 to
5.52). The t-tests comparing the Correct to Incorrect
condition for each of L.F.'s evaluations were significant
(see Table 2-6) a p < .05. Clearly then, all groups were
able to accurately derive personality information from
unfamiliar faces.
Identity Rating Test. For the Identity Rating test,
there was a significant Group by Condition interaction (F
[3,46] = 6.82, p = .0007). Evaluation of the interaction
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old
Subject Group
Condition
Correct Incorrect


68
Table 2-6
Results of t-Tests Comparing L.F.'s Ratings in the Correct
Versus Incorrect Conditions for Each of the Rating Tests
Occupational Stereotype Rating Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
E
.4193
.5001
.3501
.3278
mean
sd
mean
sd
1
2
3
4
5.10
5.40
5.80
5.20
(1.52)
(1.35)
(1.40)
(1.40)
4.50 (1.72)
5.00 (1.25)
5.20 (1.40)
4.60 (1.26)
.8268
. 6882
.9594
1.0062
Personality Stereotype Rating Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
mean
sd
mean
sd
t
E
1
6.10
(0.74)
3.70
(1.34)
4.9685
.0002
2
5.70
(1.16)
3.90
(1.10)
3.5607
.0022
3
6.50
(1.84)
3.70
(1.06)
4.1689
.0009
4
6.20
(1.03)
3.90
(1.10)
4.8192
. 0001
Identity Ratina Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
mean sd mean sd
t
E
1 4.88
(1.13)
4.29
(1.70)
.7782
.4542
2 4.50
(1.07)
3.71
(1.89)
.9723
.3558
3 5.63
(0.52)
5.00
(0.82)
1.7420
. 1124
4 5.63
(0.52)
4.43
(1.27)
2.3251
. 0498
indicated that there was a significant difference between
the correct and incorrect conditions within all the groups
(Younger: F [1,14] = 4784.75, p = .0001; Older: F [1,14] =
628.35, p = .0001; LHD: F [1,9] = 290.36, p = .0001; RHD:
F [1,9] = 48.17, p = .0001). Within the Correct condition,
the RHD patients were significantly lower than the two


69
Table 2-7
Simle Effect and
Grand Mean
Ratinas for the
Personality
Stereotype
Ratincj
Test
Condition
Group
Group
Correct
Incorrect
Grand Mean
Young
in
6.63x
3.47x
5.05
sd
1.04
.91
1.87
L.F.
m
6.13*
3.80^
4.96
sd
.33
.12
1.26
Old
in
6.69
3.64
5.16
sd
. 69
.94
1.75
LHD
m
6.94
4.33
5.57
sd
.83
.99
1.61
RHD
in
6.11
4.50
5.31
sd
1.33
.91
1.38
Condition
Grand Mean
in
sd
6.60a
.99
3.90
1.00
Note. Only the Condition main effect was significant
condition main effect means with the same letter are
significantly different at alpha < .05
xy when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition
control groups (F [3,46] = 4.35, p = .0089) but did not
differ from the LHD patients nor did the LHD patients differ
from the control subjects. Within the Incorrect condition,
the RHD patients were significantly higher than the
remaining groups (F [3,46] = 5.09, p = .0040) which did not
differ. These results indicate that while the RHD patients
were able to discriminate correct from incorrect face name
pairings, they did not do so as well as the other subjects


70
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old LHD RHD
Subject Group
Condition
I Correct
EWWN Incorrect
Figure 2-3. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Personality Stereotype test.
(see Table 2-8 and Figure 2-4). L.F.'s score for the
Correct condition (mean = 5.16) was less than the lower
limit of the 95% Cl for the Correct condition of the Younger
control group (8.34 to 9.36) and his score for the Incorrect
condition (mean = 4.36) was larger than the upper limit of
the 95% Cl for the Incorrect condition of the Younger
control group (.45 to 1.99). Of the t-tests comparing the
Correct to Incorrect condition for each of L.F.'s
evaluations, only one (#4) was significant (see Table 2-6)
at alpha < .05; given the number of analyses computed, an
alpha level of .0498 should be interpreted as non
significant. Thus, while the RHD patients had mild


difficulty recognizing famous faces, they could do so far
more accurately than the prosopagnosic.
71
Comparison of Ratings Test Difference Scores. When
difference scores (i.e., the difference between mean rating
for the Correct condition and mean rating for the Incorrect
condition) for
the
three rating
tests were
analyzed together
in a 4 (Group)
x 3
(Test) ANOVA
significant
Group (F [3,46]
Table 2-8
Simple Effect
and
Grand Mean Ratings for the Identity Rating
Test
Condition
Group
Correct Incorrect
Group
Grand Mean
Young
m
8.85ax
1.22bx
5.04
sd
.24
.36
3.89
L.F.
m
5.16z
4.36z
4.76
sd
.56
.53
.66
Old
m
8.55ax
1.46bx
5.00
sd
.52
.75
3.66
LHD
m
8.28axy
1.61bx
4.95
sd
.73
.64
3.49
RHD
m
7.67a¥
2.47b¥
5.07
sd
1.56
1.35
3.02
Condition
Grand Mean
m
8.41
1.62
sd
.91
.90
row means sharing these letters are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
xy column means sharing these letters are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
xz when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition


72
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old LHD RHD
Subject Group
Condition
I Correct
E~\W\N Incorrect
Figure 2-4. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Identity test.
= 5.69, p = .0021) and Test (F [2,90] = 191.54, p = .0001)
main effects were found without a significant interaction (F
[6,90] = .46, p = .8366). The REGWF1s indicated that the
RHD group was significantly worse at discriminating correct
versus incorrect pairings across all tests and that all
subjects were better at discriminating correct versus
incorrect face-name pairings on the Face Identity test than
on the Occupation and Personality tests. L.F. was
significantly impaired compared to his control group on both
the Occupation (L.F.'s score = .55; 95% Cl = .55 to 5.99)
and Identity Rating tests (L.F.'s score = .80; 95% Cl = 6.71
to 8.55). His difference score on the Personality Rating


73
Test (2.23) fell within the 95% Cl for the Younger Control
group (1.44 to 6.88). See Table 2-9 for means and standard
deviations. These findings show non task-specific
impairment in discriminating correct from incorrect pairings
for the RHD patients while the prosopagnosic's impairment is
specific to the occupation and identity tasks.
Summary of the Direct Task Results. It was
hypothesized in Chapter 1 that the RHD patients would be
Table 2-9
Mean Difference Scores for Rating Tests
Test
Group
Group
Occ
Pers
Iden
Grand Mean
Young
in
3.27x
3.17x
7.63x
4.69a
sd
1.27
1.73
.43
2.44
L.F.
m
.55^
2.33x
.80^
1.22
sd
. 10
.41
.28
.86
Old
IS
3.27
3.05
7.09
4.47a
sd
1.50
1.31
1.10
2.27
LHD
IS
2.71
2.69
6.67
4.12a
sd
1.27
1.50
1.24
2.32
RHD
IS
1.84
1.61
5.20
2.88b
sd
2.36
1.31
2.37
2.61
Test
Grand Mean
IS
2.87a
2.72a
6.79b
sd
1.66
1.58
1.57
ab main effect
means with
the same
letter are
not
significantly
different at
alpha <
. 05
when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition


74
relatively impaired on the expression and personality
stereotype tasks while the prosopagnosic would be impaired
on the identity and occupation stereotype tasks. As
hypothesized, the prosopagnosic was severely impaired in his
ability to gather identity and occupational stereotype
information from faces while performing normally on the
expression and personality stereotype tasks. On the other
hand, the RHD patients, while being impaired on the
expression task, performed normally on the three other
direct tasks including the personality stereotype task.
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information
Face-Occupation Category Interference Test. For each
Indirect Test, RTs were submitted to a 4 (Group) by 3
(Condition) mixed-block ANOVA. For this test neither the
Condition main effect (F [2,92] = .25, p = .7757) nor the
Group by Condition interaction (F [6,92] = 1.23, p = .2980)
were significant. Only the Group main effect reached
significance (F [3,92] = 12.59, p = .0001). The post hoc
test indicated that the two stroke groups had significantly
longer overall RTs than did the control groups. L.F.'s
scores fell well within their respective 95% Cl's but there
was not a significant condition effect for the Younger
Control group, and L.F.'s Correct condition was his slowest.
Thus, it can be concluded that L.F. did not show an
interference effect. Table 2-10 shows means and standard
deviations for this test.


75
Table 2-10
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Occupation Category Interference Test
(Con = Congruent, Incon = Incongruente
Condition
Group
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Main Effect
Younger
1
905.8
907.7
931.2
914.9a
sd
149.7
159.2
173.4
157.8
L.F.
21
1001.6
1049.1
966.8
1005.8
sd
148.1
187.8
117.0
143.5
Older
21
940.0
925.8
928.5
931.4a
sd
249.6
221.4
235.1
220.8
LHD
m
1239.8
1239.5
1226.4
1235.2b
sd
271.3
182.5
222.3
220.3
RHD
2!
1346.2
1340.5
1280.6
1322.4b
sd
230.0
199.9
192.8
203.2
Condition
Main Effect m
1071.0
1066.1
1059.3
sd
286.9
264.4
249.8
Note. The
Condition
i main effect means
do not
include L.F.
scores.
Face-
Personality Descriptor Interference
Test. For
this test,
the Group
> (F [3,
92] = 21.00,
P =
0001) and
Condition
(F [2,92]
= 31.69
, p = .0001)
main <
effects and
Group by Condition interaction (F [6,92] = 2.91, p = .0122)
were significant. Table 2-11 provides means and standard
deviations and Figure 2-5 presents the data graphically.
Because the interaction was significant, follow-ups on the
main effects were not calculated. Follow-up ANOVAs and
REGWFs were computed for each Group and Condition to
determine the source of the interaction. Within each group


76
Table 2-11
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Personality Descriptor Interference Test
(Con = Congruent, Incon = Incongruente
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Group
Main Effect
Younger
m
sd
972.7a
252.5
984.1a
248.3
1020.9b
260.2
992.6
248.8
L.F.
m
sd
1050.6
134.6
1021.5
116.5
1067.3
150.1
1046.5
123.2
Older
E
sd
977.3a
188.6
980.5a
217.3
1048.5b
235.1
1002.1
212.2
LHD
E
sd
1452.3a
274.1
1480.2a
321.4
1659.6b
403.0
1530.7
338.4
RHD
E
sd
1777.5ab
395.7
1654.8a
381.6
1844.5b
359.4
1758.9
374.5
Condition
Main Effect
E
sd
1231.0
426.7
1216.4
404.7
1321.6
467.3
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
a V
row means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha = .05; comparisons among means without
letters were not evaluated.
there was a significant Condition effect (Younger: F [2,28]
= 5.09, p = .0130; Older: F [2,28] = 9.49, p = .0007; LHD:
F [2,18] = 18.88, p =.0001; RHD: F [2,18] = 5.73, p =
.0119). The post hoc REGWFs indicated that for the Younger
and Older Controls and the LHD patients the Congruent and
Control conditions did not differ, but the Incongruent
condition was significantly slower than the other two
conditions. For the RHD patients there was no difference


77
1850
1550
1250
950
Reaction Time (ms)
Young Prosop Old LHD
Subject Group
RHD
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-5. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Personality Descriptor
interference task.
between the Control and Incongruent conditions nor between
the Control and Congruent conditions, but the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions were different. The bottom line for
this analysis is that the Incongruent condition was
significantly slower than the Congruent condition for all
groups indicating that information provided by the face
interfered with the personality-related decision.
Within each condition there was a significant Group
effect at alpha = .0001 (Control: F [3,46] = 22.13;
Congruent: F [3,46] = 17.48; Incongruent: F [3,46] =
21.46). For all conditions, the two stroke groups were


78
significantly slower than the control groups. Because the
prosopagnosic1s RTs were, expectedly, much slower than those
of the Young controls, it made no sense to use confidence
intervals built around the control group's scores to
determine if L.F. performed normally. Instead, 95% CIs were
constructed around L.F.'s mean scores (which represent the
results of four testing sessions). For L.F. on this test,
the conditions, ordered from fastest to slowest, were:
Congruent (m = 1021.5; 95% Cl: 1017.9 to 1025.1), Control (m
= 1050.6; 95% Cl: 1047.0 to 1054.2), and Incongruent (m =
1067.3; 95% Cl: 1063.7 to 1070.9). Clearly, there is no
overlap of confidence intervals and the conditions are
ordered as hypothesized for a normal effect. Thus, like the
RHD patients, L.F. showed a normal interference effect on
this test.
Expression-Label Interference Test. For this test, the
Group (F [3,92] = 16.22) and Condition (F [3,92] = 8.22)
main effects were significant at alpha = .0001; the Group by
Condition interaction was not significant (F [6,92] = 0.75,
p = .6100). Table 2-12 shows means and standard deviations
for this test and Figure 2-6 shows the data graphically.
Post hoc testing indicated, again, that the stroke patients
had slower overall RTs than did the control subjects, while
the Incongruent condition was significantly slower than the
Congruent and Control conditions (which did not differ).
While the above results seem to suggest that the RHD
patients performed "normally" (i.e., the Incongruent


79
Table 2-12
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Expression-Label Interference Test (Con =
Congruent, Incon = Incongruent)
Condition
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Group
Main Effect
Younger
21
634.8
638.7
654.3
642.6a
sd
110.4
102.8
123.3
110.2
L.F.
21
670.7
691.3
683.0
681.6
sd
29.6
27.4
22.9
25.8
Older
21
651.3
659.3
676.3
662.3a
sd
105.3
105.4
112.0
105.7
LHD
21
959.5
936.8
975.0
957.lb
sd
277.1
214.4
253.8
241.5
RHD
21
889.7
912.3
911.4
904.5b
sd
136.1
124.4
152.1
133.6
Condition
Main Effect
21
755.7a
759.2a
776.4
sd
210.0
109.3
208.3
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
a K
main effect means with the same letter are not
significantly different at alpha = .05
condition was slower than the Congruent condition) on this
task, further analysis casts doubt on this interpretation.
When the Older control group and the two stroke groups were
analyzed independently, the Incongruent condition was
significantly slower that the other two conditions for the
control subjects (F [2,28] = 9.78, p = .0006) and approached
significance for the LHD patients (F [2,18] =2.27, p =
.1318). However, the F-test was not even close for the RHD
patients (F [2,18] = .88, p = .4315). In fact, examination


80
Reaction Time (ms)
1000 I
Young Prosop Old LHD RHD
Subject Group
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-6. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Expression Label
interference task.
of the RHD means in Table 3-10 indicates the Congruent
condition was actually slower than the Incongruent condition
for this group. Thus, despite the finding of a Condition
main effect in the overall ANOVA, it appears that the RHD
patients did not show a normal interference effect on this
task and lack of statistical power cannot account for this
failure. Likewise, L.F. was slower on the Congruent than
Incongruent condition suggesting that he, too, was unable to
indirectly extract expression information from faces.
Face-Identity Interference Test. On this test, both
main effects and the interaction were significant (Group: F


81
[3,92] = 21.20, p = .0001; Condition: F [2,92] = 60.56, p =
.0001; Group by Condition: F [6,92] = 2.63, p = .0213).
Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that all groups showed a
significant Condition effect (Younger: F [2,28] = 9.83, p =
.0006; Older: F [2,28] = 14.89, p = .0001; LHD: F [2,18] =
13.81, p = .0002; RHD: F [2,18] = 22.55, p = .0001). The
ordering of Conditions was identical for all groups with the
Congruent being fastest and Incongruent slowest, and Control
in between (see Table 2-13 and Figure 2-7). However, for
Table 2-13
Reaction Time fin milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Identity Interference Test [Con =
Congruent. Incon = Incongruente
Condition
Group
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Main Effect
Younger
m
962.4a
931.2a
1045.6b
979.8
sd
157.0
156.1
236.2
189.0
L.F.
21
1150.9
1203.0
1199.8
1184.5
sd
31.7
30.8
37.8
39.3
Older
21
1091.5a
997.8b
1155.6
1081.6
sd
295.7
186.4
282.7
261.9
LHD
21
1513.9a
1427.6a
1668.8b
1536.8
sd
329.6
298.2
436.8
361.7
RHD
21
1633.3a
1394.3b
1785.6
1604.4
sd
267.5
224.7
371.5
327.9
Condition
Grand Mean
21
sd
1245.6
377.2
1143.2
303.4
1351.3
445.6
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
abc
means within a column with the same letter are not
significantly different at alpha = .05


82
1800
1500
1200
900
Reaction Time (ms)
Young Prosop Old
Subject Group
LHD
RHD
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-7. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Identity interference
task.
the Younger controls and LHD patients there was no
difference between the Congruent and Control conditions.
For the Older controls and RHD patients, all conditions were
significantly different. Within each condition the stroke
groups were again significantly slower than the control
groups (Control: F [3,46] = 21.36; Congruent: F [3,46] =
19.24; Incongruent: F [3,46] = 19.24) at alpha = .0001.
L.F.'s scores were ordered properly (i.e., Congruent faster
than Incongruent) and however the magnitude of the effect
was small compared to the Younger controls and relative to
his own and another prosopagnosic's performance on other


83
face-name interference tasks (DeHaan et al. in press;
DeHaan et al., 1987) Thus it seems that the prosopagnosic
alone failed to demonstrate a normal interference effect on
this task despite having demonstrated implicit recognition
of facial identity in several other studies (Bauer, 1984;
Greve & Bauer, 1990; DeHaan et al.. in press). Issues
related to his apparent failure on this task and the
expression interference task will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Summary of Indirect Task Results. In summary, all
groups failed to show an interference effect on the
Occupation task while strong effects were observed for all
groups on the Personality task. The prosopagnosic failed to
show an interference effect on the Identity task, while the
other groups performed normal. This finding is in contrast
to that of DeHaan et al.1s (in press) who showed an
interference effect with this patient; it is also in
contrast to several other studies which have demonstrated
implicit recognition of facial identity in prosopagnosia.
On the Expression task, the RHD patients and the
prosopagnosic failed to show sensitivity to the expression
information provided by the faces. The implications of this
finding are discussed in the following chapter.
Individual Performance on Expression Tasks
The group data indicate associated impairments on the
direct and indirect expression tasks for the RHD patients.
The failure of the RHD patients on both types of tasks has


Full Text
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



PAGE 1

(;75$&7,21 2) 121,'(17,7< ,1)250$7,21 )520 81)$0,/,$5 )$&(6 $1 ,19(67,*$7,21 2) 1250$/ $1' 3$7+2/2*,&$/ )$&( 352&(66,1* %\ .(9,1 : *5(9( $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*0(176 ,W SUREDEO\ VWULNHV PRVW SHRSOH DW VRPH SRLQW GXULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI D PDMRU UHVHDUFK SURMHFW WKDW GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW LWnV \RXU SURMHFW \RX FRXOG QRW KDYH KRSHG WR KDYH FRPSOHWHG LW DORQH EHFDPH DZDUH RI WKDW IDFW GXULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI P\ PDVWHUn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

PAGE 3

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nW WKLQN FRXOG KDYH DVNHG IRU D EHWWHU GLVVHUWDWLRQ FRPPLWWHH 7KDQN \RX ([HFXWLRQ RI WKLV SURMHFW ZDV FKDOOHQJLQJ 0DQ\ VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW ZHUH UHTXLUHG EHIRUH UDQ P\ ILUVW UHDOf VXEMHFWV 5DQGL /LQFROQ ZDV P\ SDUWQHU IRU WKH ILUVW VL[ PRQWKV GXULQJ ZKLFK ZH FROOHFWHG SKRWRJUDSKV RI PHQ DQG FRQGXFWHG DOO WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ FODVVLILFDWLRQ UHVHDUFK RQ WKRVH SKRWRJUDSKV -RKQ 3DXO $EQHU DOVR SOD\HG D VLJQLILFDQW UROH LQ WKH SKRWRJUDSK\ SRUWLRQ RI WKLV SURMHFW ,W LV DOVR LPSRUWDQW WR WKDQN DOO WKH PDOH VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI &OLQLFDO t +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ WKH +HDOWK &HQWHU HPSOR\HHV DQG PHPEHUV RI WKH %DSWLVW 6WXGHQW &HQWHU ZKR WRRN WLPH RXW WR EH SKRWRJUDSKHG DQG EHFDPH WKH VWLPXOXV IDFHV 0DQ\ RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ FODVVLILFDWLRQ VWXGLHV ZHUH HLWKHU XQGHUJUDGXDWHV IURP WKH LLL

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

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nV KDUG WR SXW LQWR ZRUGV KRZ LPSRUWDQW LW KDV EHHQ IRU PH WR NQRZ WKDW VKH ZDV WKHUH WR WDON WR LI WKLQJV JRW WRXJK ,Q P\ WKHVLV WKDQNHG KHU IRU WROHUDWLQJ P\ VHHPLQJO\ HQGOHVV EODEEHU DERXW WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDQNV IRU WKDW LV DOVR DSSURSULDWH DOWKRXJK WKLQN GLGQn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

PAGE 6

XS DQG ,nP IHHOLQJ GLVFRXUDJHG DQG ORZ RQ HQHUJ\ WKHUH LV QR EHWWHU WKHUDS\ WKDQ ILVKLQJ ,Q IDFW WKHUH LV QR EHWWHU WKHUDS\ HYHQ ZKHQ ,nP IHHOLQJ JRRG &RPSOHWLQJ P\ GLVVHUWDWLRQ UHSUHVHQWV WKH FXOPLQDWLRQ RI P\ JUDGXDWH FDUHHU 7KLV KDV EHHQ D ZRQGHUIXO H[SHULHQFH DQG LI KDG LW WR GR DJDLQ GRQnW WKLQN ZRXOG GR DQ\WKLQJ GLIIHUHQWO\ H[FHSW VWDUW ILVKLQJ VRRQHUf FRXOGQnW KDYH DVNHG IRU EHWWHU WUDLQLQJ QRU IRU EHWWHU SHRSOH WR OHDUQ IURP DQG ZLWK 7KDQN \RX DOO YL

PAGE 7

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 ; /,67 2) ),*85(6 ; $%675$&7 ;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

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

SDJH & 67,08/86 )$&(6 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ L[

PAGE 10

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nV 5DWLQJV LQ WKH &RUUHFW 9HUVXV ,QFRUUHFW &RQGLWLRQV IRU (DFK RI WKH 5DWLQJ 7HVWV 7$%/( 6LPSOH (IIHFW DQG *UDQG 0HDQ 5DWLQJV IRU WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ 7HVW 7$%/( 6LPSOH (IIHFW DQG *UDQG 0HDQ 5DWLQJV IRU WKH ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ 7HVW 7$%/( 0HDQ 'LIIHUHQFH 6FRUHV IRU 5DWLQJV 7HVWV 7$%/( 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU )DFH2FFXSDWLRQ &DWHJRU\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW 7$%/( 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU )DFH3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HVFULSWRU ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW [

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

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

PAGE 13

SDJH ),*85( & $WKOHWH ),*85( & 'RFWRU ),*85( & .LQG ),*85( & 6RFLDEOH ),*85( & $JJUHVVLYH ),*85( ,QWROHUDQW ),*85( +DSS\ ),*85( & 6DG ),*85( 2LO $QJU\ ),*85( )ULJKWHQHG ),*85( -RKQ .HQQHG\ ),*85( /\QGRQ -RKQVRQ ),*85( %RE +RSH ),*85( (OYLV 3UHVOH\ [LLL

PAGE 14

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ (;75$&7,21 2) 121,'(17,7< ,1)250$7,21 )520 81)$0,/,$5 )$&(6 $1 ,19(67,*$7,21 2) 1250$/ $1' 3$7+2/2*,&$/ )$&( 352&(66,1* E\ .HYLQ : *UHYH $XJXVW &KDLUPDQ 5XVVHOO 0 %DXHU 3K' 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &OLQLFDO t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f IURP D IDFH WKDW GRHV QRW \LHOG VSHFLILF FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW LWV LGHQWLW\ RU HPRWLRQDO VWDWH :KLOH WKH DELOLW\ WR PDNH VWHUHRW\SH MXGJHPHQWV KDV EHHQ H[WHQVLYHO\ H[SORUHG [LY

PAGE 15

LQ WKH VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ OLWHUDWXUH QRWKLQJ DERXW WKHLU QHXURORJLFDO EDVLV LV NQRZQ LQFOXGLQJ ZKHWKHU WKHVH SURFHVVHV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LPSDLUHG LQ EUDLQ GLVHDVH 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR KHOS XQGHUVWDQG WKH FRJQLWLYH DQG QHXUREHKDYLRUDO PHFKDQLVPV XQGHUO\LQJ WKHVH DELOLWLHV $ SURVRSDJQRVLF DQG KLV DJHPDWFKHG FRQWUROV DQG VLQJOHHYHQW XQLODWHUDO VWURNH SDWLHQWV ULJKW 5+' OHIW /+'f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

PAGE 16

,W ZDV FRQFOXGHG WKDW RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH GHFLVLRQV ZHUH EDVHG RQ LGHQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKHWKHU H[SUHVVLRQ RU LGHQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWULEXWHV WR SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH MXGJHPHQWV UHPDLQV DQ XQUHVROYHG LVVXH WR EH H[SORUHG LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV [Y L

PAGE 17

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 )DFH SHUFHSWLRQ LV D YLWDOO\ LPSRUWDQW SURFHVV IRU SULPDWHV LQFOXGLQJ KXPDQV DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ IDFHV SOD\V DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ ,W VKRXOG FRPH DV QR VXUSULVH WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR GLVFULPLQDWH IDFHV EHJLQV DW D YHU\ HDUO\ DJH QRU VKRXOG LW EH VXUSULVLQJ WKDW WKHUH H[LVW SRSXODWLRQV RI FHOOV ZLWKLQ WKH SULPDWH EUDLQ WKDW UHVSRQG SULPDULO\ WR IDFHV DQG ZKRVH SDWWHUQV RI UHVSRQGLQJ PD\ HYHQ GLIIHUHQWLDWH DPRQJ IDFHV %D\OLV 5ROOV t /HRQDUG f :LWK OLWWOH HIIRUW ZH VHHP DEOH WR MXGJH WKH VH[ DQG DJH RI D SHUVRQ VLPSO\ E\ ORRNLQJ DW KLVKHU IDFH (TXDOO\ UHPDUNDEOH LV WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK LQGLYLGXDOV PDNH RI MXGJHPHQWV RI DWWUDFWLYHQHVV 6HFRUG f RU OLNHDELOLW\ *UHYH t %DXHU f DFURVV LQGLYLGXDOV :H DUH DOVR DEOH WR FDWHJRUL]H IDFHV EDVHG RQ DSSDUHQW RFFXSDWLRQ .ODW]N\ 0DUWLQ t .DQH Df DQG IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ (NPDQ )ULHVDQ t (LOVZRUWK f %HFDXVH RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IDFHV LQ HYHU\GD\ OLIH RXU YDVW H[SHULHQFH ZLWK IDFHV LQ D P\ULDG RI FRQWH[WV KDV WDXJKW XV WR DXWRPDWLFDOO\ H[WUDFW IURP WKHP H[WHQVLYH DPRXQWV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 18

7KHUH GR H[LVW KRZHYHU FHUWDLQ QHXURORJLFDOO\ LPSDLUHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDYH ORVW RU DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LPSDLUHG LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR DFFXUDWHO\ PDNH PDQ\ RI WKH DERYH GLVFULPLQDWLRQV 3HUVRQV ZKR VXIIHU VWURNHV RI WKH ULJKW FHUHEUDO KHPLVSKHUH RIWHQ KDYH LPSDLUHG UHFRJQLWLRQ RI DIIHFWLYH IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ WKRXJK WKHLU DELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ PD\ EH VSDUHG %RZHUV %DXHU &RVOHWW t +HLOPDQ f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG SURVRSDJQRVLFV ZKR KDYH VXIIHUHG ELODWHUDO EUDLQ LPSDLUPHQW PD\ VWLOO UHFRJQL]H DIIHFWLYH IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ EXW KDYH ORVW WKH DELOLW\ WR LGHQWLI\ IDFHV /HYLQH t &DOYDQLR f 7KH HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH FRQFHSWLRQ RI IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ ZKLFK LV EDVHG RQ H[WUDFWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\f LQIRUPDWLRQf DQG DIIHFW LGHQWLILFDWLRQ EDVHG RQ H[WUDFWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK LV XQUHODWHG WR WKH LGHQWLW\ RI WKH IDFHf DV LQGHSHQGHQW SURFHVVHV LV FRPSHOOLQJ 7KH WHUP LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ KDV EHHQ XVHG LQ UHIHUHQFH WR WKUHH IDLUO\ GLVWLQFW DQG SDUWLDOO\ GLVVRFLDEOH DELOLWLHV %HQWRQ f )LUVW WKLV WHUP KDV EHHQ XVHG WR UHIHU WR WKH DELOLW\ RI D SHUVRQ WR PDWFK XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV 7KH PRVW QRWDEOH H[DPSOH RI WKLV XVDJH LV WKH 7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ /HYLQ +DPVKHU t %HQWRQ f LQ ZKLFK WKH SDWLHQW PXVW ILQG WKH IDFH ZLWKLQ D VHW RI VL[ ZKLFK LV WKH VDPH DV D WDUJHW IDFH (OHPHQWV RI WKH %HQWRQ WDVN UHTXLUH SURFHVVLQJ RI IDFHV DV IDFHV LQ WKDW IRU VRPH LWHPV WKH VXEMHFW PXVW PDWFK D

PAGE 19

VWLPXOXV IDFH ZLWK WDUJHWV WKDW DUH RULHQWHG RU OLJKWHG GLIIHUHQWO\ +RZHYHU PDWFKLQJ WR VDPSOH RU IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WDVNV ZKLFK DVN DUH WKHVH WZR IDFHV WKH VDPH RU GLIIHUHQW SHRSOH HJ %RZHUV HW DO f DUH RIWHQ XVHG WR VFUHHQ IRU YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO LPSDLUPHQW 7KLV XVDJH ZLOO EH UHIHUUHG WR DV IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ $ VHFRQG XVDJH RI WKLV WHUP UHIHUV WR D SHUVRQfV DELOLW\ WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU DQ XQIDPLOLDU IDFH KDV EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\ SUHVHQWHG ([DPSOHV RI VXFK WDVNV LQFOXGH WKH 0LOQHU )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7HVW 0LOQHU f DQG 'HQPDQnV f 0HPRU\ IRU +XPDQ )DFHV ,Q WKHVH WDVNV WKH VXEMHFW VWXGLHV D ODUJH VHW RI XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV WKHQ VHOHFWV WKH RQHV KHVKH UHPHPEHUV DIWHU D GHOD\ 7KLV ZLOO EH UHIHUUHG WR DV IDFH PHPRU\ )LQDOO\ IDFLDO UHFRJQLWLRQ PD\ UHIHU WR WKH DELOLW\ WR QDPH RU RWKHUZLVH LGHQWLI\ IDPLOLDU IDFHV VXFK DV WKRVH RI IDPLO\ RU FHOHEULWLHVf DV DVVHVVHG IRU H[DPSOH E\ WKH $OEHUW )DPRXV )DFHV $OEHUW %XWWHUV t /HYLQ f 7KLV ZLOO EH UHIHUUHG WR DV IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG LV RI PDMRU LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV VWXG\ :DUULQJWRQ DQG -DPHV f IRXQG QR FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ DQ XQIDPLOLDU IDFH PHPRU\ WDVN DQG D IDPRXV IDFHV WDVN DPRQJ XQLODWHUDO FHUHEUDO OHVLRQ SDWLHQWV 6LPLODUO\ %HQWRQ f IRXQG D GLVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ LQ D SURVRSDJQRVLF 7KH DELOLW\ WR FDWHJRUL]H XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV LQ WHUPV RI QRQREVHUYDEOH DWWULEXWHV VXFK SHUVRQDOLW\

PAGE 20

FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG DSSDUHQW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ PHPEHUVKLS GRHV QRW UHO\ RQ NQRZOHGJH RI WKH DFWXDO LGHQWLW\ RI D VWLPXOXV IDFH EXW VHHPV WR GHSHQG RQ DFFHVV ZKLFK LV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ FRQVFLRXVf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

PAGE 21

1HXURDQDWRPY RI 9LVLRQ ,W LV QRZ TXLWH FOHDU WKDW YLVLRQ LV QRW D VLQJOH XQLWDU\ SKHQRPHQRQ EXW FRQVLVWV RI SDUDOOHO DQG VHULDO SURFHVVHV RFFXUULQJ LQ GLVWLQFW DQDWRPLF SDWKZD\V ZKLFK GHDO ZLWK YDULHG DVSHFWV RI WKH YLVXDO VWLPXOXV 7KH ODPLQDU DQG FROXPQDU VWUXFWXUH RI VWULDWH FRUWH[ UHIOHFWV WKH JURXSLQJ RI QHXURQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHLU IXQFWLRQDO UROHV .DDV f )RU H[DPSOH WKHUH DUH OD\HUV ZKLFK W\SLFDOO\ FRQWDLQ FRORUVHOHFWLYH ILHOGV ,OOEf ZKLOH RWKHUV ,,,Ff DUH UHVSRQVLYH WR VWLPXOXV RULHQWDWLRQ DQG GLUHFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKHUH DUH WKH RFXODU GRPLQDQFH FROXPQV DQG RULHQWDWLRQ FROXPQV GHVFULEHG E\ +XEHL DQG :LHVHO f 2FXODU GRPLQDQFH FROXPQV DUH WKUHH GLPHQVLRQDO VWULSV RI FRUWH[ QRW WUXH FROXPQVf WKDW H[WHQG YHUWLFDOO\ WKURXJK DOO OD\HUV RI VWULDWH FRUWH[ DQG UHVSRQG WR VWLPXODWLRQ RI RQH H\H RQO\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ FROXPQV DUH VLPLODU WR RFXODU GRPLQDQFH FROXPQV H[FHSW WKDW WKH\ DUH UHVSRQVLYH WR VWLPXOL RI RQH SDUWLFXODU RULHQWDWLRQ RQO\ +XEHL f $UFKLWHFWXUH UHIOHFWV IXQFWLRQ QRW RQO\ DW WKH FRUWLFDO OHYHO EXW DSSDUHQWO\ DW SUHFRUWLFDO OHYHOV DV ZHOO .DDV f GHVFULEHV WKUHH SDUDOOHO YLVXDO SDWKZD\V ZKLFK RULJLQDWH LQ WKH UHWLQD 7KH ; SDWKZD\ SOD\V D UROH LQ REMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ ZKLOH WKH < SDWKZD\ VHHPV WR EH LQYROYHG LQ DWWHQWLRQ DQG PRYHPHQW GHWHFWLRQ 7KH WKLUG V\VWHP : LV SRRUO\ XQGHUVWRRG EXW VHHPV WR

PAGE 22

LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKH RWKHU WZR HVSHFLDOO\ ; DQG PRGXODWH DQG HQKDQFH WKHLU QHXURQDO ILULQJ 7KHUH LV IXUWKHU VWURQJ HYLGHQFH IRU WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH ; DQG < SDWKZD\V EH\RQG SULPDU\ YLVXDO FRUWH[ 2QH SDWKZD\ H[WHQGV PXOWLV\QDSWLFO\ IURP VWULDWH FRUWH[ WR WKH LQIHULRU WHPSRUDO DUHD ODWHU V\QDSVLQJ LQ WKH OLPELF V\VWHP DQG YHQWUDO IURQWDO OREH 0LVKNLQ 8QJHUOHLGHU t 0DFNR f 7KLV SDWKZD\ WKH YHQWUDO YLVXDOOLPELF SDWKZD\ DSSHDUV FULWLFDO IRU REMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ 0LVKNLQ HW DO f DQG KDV HPRWLRQDO DV ZHOO DV nPQHVWLFn IXQFWLRQV ZKLFK DUH PRGDOLW\VSHFLILF WR YLVLRQ %DXHU S f $ VHFRQG V\VWHP GHVFULEHG E\ 0LVKNLQ HW DO f DSSHDUV WR IXQFWLRQ DV WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH < SDWKZD\ 7KLV SDWKZD\ UXQV GRUVDOO\ LQ WKH VXSHULRU ORQJLWXGLQDO IDVFLFXOXV WR LQWHUFRQQHFW VWULDWH FRUWH[ ZLWK WKH SDULHWDO OREH DQG FRQWLQXHV RQ WR V\QDSVH LQ WKH OLPELF V\VWHP DQG GRUVRODWHUDO IURQWDO OREH WKXV IRUPLQJ WKH GRUVDO YLVXROLPELF SDWKZD\ 7KLV V\VWHP DSSHDUV LPSRUWDQW LQ DWWHQWLRQ YLVXDO JXLGDQFH RI PRWRU DFWV 0LVKNLQ HW DO f DQG VSDWLDO ORFDOL]DWLRQ RI GULYH UHOHYDQW VWLPXOL S %HDU f 7KH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH YHQWUDO DQG GRUVDO YLVXROLPELF V\VWHPV LV LQWHJUDWHG LQ QRUPDO REMHFW YLVLRQ 5HWLQDO LQSXWV WR WKH YHQWUDO V\VWHP DUH SULPDULO\ IRYHDO ZKLOH LQSXWV IURP ERWK WKH IRYHD DQG UHWLQDO SHULSKHU\ DUH HJXDOO\ LPSRUWDQW WR WKH GRUVDO V\VWHP 0LVKNLQ HW DO

PAGE 23

f %DXHU f VSHFXODWHG WKDW WKH NLQG RI SURFHVVLQJ ZKLFK LV WDNLQJ SODFH LQ WKH GRUVDO V\VWHP LQYROYHV WKH GHSOR\PHQW RI DWWHQWLRQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ HIIRUW WRZDUG VWLPXOL ZKLFK DSSHDU VLJQLILFDQW LQ D FXUVRU\ SUHOLPLQDU\ RU nSUHDWWHQWLYHr DQDO\VLV 7KH VWLPXOXV LV WKHQ IRYHDWHG DQG WKH YLVXDOGLVFULPLQDWRU\ DQG PRGDOLW\ VSHFLILF DURXVDO IXQFWLRQV RI WKH YHQWUDO V\VWHP DUH EURXJKW WR EHDU RQ WKH SURFHVV RI RYHUW LGHQWLILFDWLRQ S f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH IXQFWLRQDO GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH YHQWUDO DQG GRUVDO YLVXDOOLPELF SDWKZD\V ODWHUDOL]HG DV\PPHWULHV DUH DOVR DQ LPSRUWDQW IHDWXUH RI WKH FHUHEUDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI YLVLRQ 1XPHURXV VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH PHGLDWHV VXSUDPRGDO SURFHVVLQJ RI YHUEDO VWLPXOL IRU D EULHI UHYLHZ VHH /H]DN f 2I JUHDWHU LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH ODWHUDOL]DWLRQ RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ ZKLFK LV GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ /DWHUDOL]DWLRQ RI )DFH 3URFHVVLQJ 7KH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH SOD\V D PDMRU UROH LQ PHGLDWLQJ SURFHVVLQJ RI FRQILJXUDO VWLPXOL RI ZKLFK IDFH SURFHVVLQJ LV DQ LPSRUWDQW H[DPSOH 2QH RI WKH HDUOLHVW UHSRUWV FRQFHUQLQJ LPSDLUPHQW LQ IDFH SURFHVVLQJ ZDV RQH E\ 4XDJOLQR DQG %RUHOOL >FLWHG LQ %HQWRQ @f ZKR GHVFULEHG LPSDLUPHQW RI IDFLDO UHFRJQLWLRQ IDPLOLDU IDFHVf DIWHU D VWURNH LQYROYLQJ SULPDULO\ WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH EXW DOVR SUREDEO\ H[WHQGLQJ WR WKH OHIW ,Q

PAGE 24

ODWHU VWXGLHV RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK ODWHUDOL]HG FHUHEUDO OHVLRQV 'H5HQ]L )DJOLRQL DQG 6SLQQOHU f DQG %HQWRQ DQG 9DQ $OOHQ f GHPRQVWUDWHG LPSDLUHG IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK ULJKWKHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQV 'H5HQ]L HW DO f HYDOXDWHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK XQLODWHUDO OHVLRQV XVLQJ VHYHUDO WDVNV WKDW LQYROYHG PDWFKLQJ RI IDFH IUDJPHQWV WR ZKROH IDFHV PDWFKLQJ IDFHV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW RULHQWDWLRQV DQG PHPRU\ IRU XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV 2YHUDOO WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV ZHUH LPSDLUHG RQ WKHVH WDVNV ,Q D VLPLODU VWXG\ %HQWRQ DQG 9DQ $OOHQ f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f 0LOQHU f IRXQG WKDW DPRQJ HSLOHSWLF SDWLHQWV ZKR KDG XQGHUJRQH EUDLQ VXUJHU\ WR FRQWURO WKHLU VHL]XUHV WKH ULJKW WHPSRUDO DQG SDULHWDO SDWLHQWV ZHUH PRUH LPSDLUHG

PAGE 25

WKDQ ULJKW IURQWDO DQG OHIW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV RQ D WDVN WKDW UHTXLUHG UHPHPEHULQJ DQG ODWHU UHFRJQL]LQJ XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV )XUWKHU DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GHJUHH RI LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH ULJKW WHPSRUDO JURXS ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH DPRXQW RI KLSSRFDPSXV UHPRYHG 0LOQHU DUJXHG WKDW WKHVH ILQGLQJV UHIOHFWHG D YLVXDO PHPRU\ GLVWXUEDQFH QRW WKH GLVUXSWLRQ RI D V\VWHP VSHFLILF WR IDFH PHPRU\ )LQDOO\ .ROE 0LOQHU DQG 7D\ORU f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f 7KH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH DOVR VHHPV WR SOD\ D VLJQLILFDQW UROH LQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI IDFHV LQ QRUPDOV )RU H[DPSOH 6XEHUL DQG 0F.HHYHU f DVNHG VXEMHFWV WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ VWXGLHG IDFHV DQG XQVWXGLHG IDFHV WKDW ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WDFKLVWRVFRSLFDOO\ WR HLWKHU WKH OHIW RU ULJKW YLVXDO ILHOG 5HDFWLRQ WLPH WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH IDFH

PAGE 26

KDG EHHQ VWXGLHG ZDV PHDVXUHG 7KH\ IRXQG D OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG DGYDQWDJH IDVWHU UHDFWLRQ WLPHVf ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG IDVWHU SURFHVVLQJ RI IDFHV E\ WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH ,I HPRWLRQDO IDFHV ZHUH VWXGLHG UHDFWLRQ WLPHV ZHUH HYHQ IDVWHU WR OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG SUHVHQWDWLRQ /H\ DQG %U\GHQ f GHPRQVWUDWHG D VLPLODU OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG DGYDQWDJH XVLQJ FDUWRRQ IDFHV 7KH\ WDFKLVWRVFRSLFDOO\ SUHVHQWHG PVf DQ HPRWLRQDO FDUWRRQ IDFH WR HLWKHU WKH ULJKW RU OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG IROORZHG E\ D ORQJHU PVf FHQWUDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI D VHFRQG IDFH 7KH WDVN ZDV WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH WZR IDFHV KDG WKH VDPH HPRWLRQ DQG ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZHUH WKH VDPH FKDUDFWHU 7KH QXPEHU RI HUURUV IRU HDFK GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WDVN DQG YLVXDO ILHOG ZHUH FDOFXODWHG 7KH UHVXOWV UHYHDOHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IHZHU HUURUV RQ ERWK WKH HPRWLRQ DQG FKDUDFWHU GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WDVNV IRU SUHVHQWDWLRQV WR WKH OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG ULJKW KHPLVSKHUHf DJDLQ VXJJHVWLQJ D ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH VXSHULRULW\ IRU SURFHVVLQJ IDFHV LQ QRUPDO VXEMHFWV 6LPLODU UHVXOWV ZHUH UHSRUWHG E\ 6WUDXVV DQG 0RVFRYLWFK f 7KHVH WZR VWXGLHV RI QRUPDOV SUHVHQW HYLGHQFH IRU ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH VXSHULRULW\ LQ SURFHVVLQJ IDFHV LQFOXGLQJ HPRWLRQDO IDFHV $V RQH PLJKW H[SHFW JLYHQ WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH VXSHULRULW\ IRU SURFHVVLQJ HPRWLRQDO IDFHV LQ QRUPDOV GHVFULEHG DERYH GDPDJH WR WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH DOVR UHVXOWV LQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR FRPSUHKHQG WKH HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ RI IDFHV 'H.RVN\ +HLOPDQ %RZHUV

PAGE 27

DQG 9DOHQVWHLQ f JDYH ULJKW DQG OHIW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQ SDWLHQWV DQG QRUPDO FRQWUROV VL[ WDVNV f GLVFULPLQDWH ZKHWKHU WZR SKRWRJUDSKV DUH RI WKH VDPH RU GLIIHUHQW SHRSOH LGHQWLW\ GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WR UXOH RXW SHUFHSWXDO GLVWXUEDQFHf f QDPH WKH HPRWLRQDO RQ D VWLPXOXV IDFH f FKRRVH WKH IDFH EHDULQJ WKH GHVLJQDWHG HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ f LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WZR IDFHV ERUH WKH VDPH RU GLIIHUHQW HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ f QDPH WKH HPRWLRQ GHSLFWHG E\ D FDUWRRQ VFHQH DQG f FKRRVH WKH FDUWRRQ VFHQH ZKLFK GHSLFWV WKH GHVLJQDWHG HPRWLRQ 7KH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV ZHUH LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV RQ DOO WDVNV H[FHSW FKRRVH WKH HPRWLRQDO VFHQHf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

PAGE 28

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f FDWHJRUL]HG DJQRVLFV ZKLFK ZRXOG LQFOXGH SURVRSDJQRVLFVf DV DVVRFLDWLYH DQG DSSHUFHSWLYH $SSHUFHSWLYH SURVRSDJQRVLFV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ VHYHUH SHUFHSWXDO GLVWXUEDQFH DQG ZKR RIWHQ DUH XQDEOH WR HYHQ UHFRJQL]H IDFHV DV IDFHV $VVRFLDWLYH SURVRSDJQRVLFV DUH DEOH WR IRUP D FRPSOHWH YLVXDO IDFLDO SHUFHSW EXW XQDEOH WR JLYH LW PHDQLQJ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH\ DUH DEOH WR UHFRJQL]H D IDFH DV D IDFH DQG WR DFFXUDWHO\ PDWFK XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV %HQWRQ f \HW FRPSOHWHO\ ODFN D VHQVH RI IDPLOLDULW\ ZKHQ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK D IDPLOLDU IDFH DQG DUH XQDEOH WR JHQHUDWH HLWKHU D QDPH IRU RU VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ HJ RFFXSDWLRQf DERXW WKH IDFH SUHVHQWHG ,W LV JHQHUDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG WKDW WKH SURVRSDJQRVLD UHVXOWV IURP ELODWHUDO OHVLRQV RI YLVXDO DVVRFLDWLRQ FRUWH[

PAGE 29

%URGPDQnV DUHDV DQG f DQG WKH RFFLSLWRWHPSRUDO SURMHFWLRQ V\VWHP DOWKRXJK WKHUH LV D SHUVLVWHQW FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW D VLQJOH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQ PD\ EH VXIILFLHQW WR FDXVH SURVRSDJQRVLD VHH %HQWRQ f %DXHU DQG 7UREH f DQG 'DPDVLR 'DPDVLR DQG 9DQ +RHVHQ f DUJXH WKDW WKHVH OHVLRQV DSSHDU WR GLVUXSW ERWK SHUFHSWXDO HODERUDWLRQ DQG YLVXDO PHPRU\ /HYLQH DQG &DOYDQLR f KRZHYHU KDYH FRQYLQFLQJO\ DUJXHG WKDW WKH SHUFHSWXDO DQG PHPRU\ GHIHFWV >LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD@ DUH QRW GLVWLQFW LPSDLUPHQWV LQ GLIIHUHQW VWDJHV RI YLVXDO UHFRJQLWLRQ EXW LQVWHDG DUH WZR DVSHFWV RI WKH VDPH XQGHUO\LQJ GLVRUGHU ZKLFK ZH FDOO GHIHFWLYH YLVXDO nFRQILJXUDOr SURFHVVLQJ S f 7R VXPPDUL]H WKHLU UDWKHU H[WHQVLYH ILQGLQJV WKHLU SURVRSDJQRVLF f FDQQRW UHFRJQL]H WKH IDFHV RI OLYH SHRSOH RU SKRWRJUDSKV RI IDPRXV SHRSOH f FDQ PDWFK IDFHV EXW KDV PRUH WURXEOH PDWFKLQJ GLIIHUHQW YLHZV RI WKH VDPH IDFH f FDQQRW UHPHPEHU IDFHQDPH SDLULQJV EXW GRHV EHWWHU LQ LQGLFDWLQJ ZKLFK RI WKRVH IDFHV ZHUH SUHYLRXVO\ SUHVHQWHG f KDV WURXEOH LGHQWLI\LQJ DQLPDOV DQG PDGH HUURUV RI XQGHUVSHFLILFDWLRQ LH PDGH KLV GHFLVLRQV EDVHG RQ VLQJOH IHDWXUHV RI WKH VWLPXOXVf f FDQ QDPH UHDO REMHFWV JHQHULFDOO\ EXW KDG WURXEOH ZLWK SKRWRJUDSKV f UHDGV DFFXUDWHO\ EXW VORZO\ f KDG WURXEOH LGHQWLI\LQJ LQFRPSOHWH OLQH GUDZLQJV RI REMHFWV RU WKRVH HPEHGGHG LQ YLVXDO ZKLWH QRLVH f SHUIRUPHG DGHTXDWHO\ RQ ZRUGIUDJPHQW FRPSOHWLRQ DQDJUDP DQG WDVNV

PAGE 30

LQ ZKLFK ZRUGV ZHUH KLGGHQ LQ URZV RI UDQGRP OHWWHUV f SHUFHSWXDO YLVXDO VHDUFKf VSHHG ZDV VORZ f KDG PL[HG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D YDULHW\ RI RWKHU YLVXRVSDWLDO WDVNV DQG f KDG D PLOG PXOWLPRGDO PHPRU\ GHIHFW EXW KDG D VHYHUH YLVXDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ GHIHFW 7KHVH GDWD VXJJHVW WKDW WKHLU SURVRSDJQRVLF FDQQRW LGHQWLI\ E\ JHWWLQJ DQ RYHUYLHZ RI DQ LWHP DV D ZKROH LQ D VLQJOH JODQFH S f DQG HFKR %DXHU DQG 7UREH f LQ WKHLU UHSRUW WKDW PRVW RIWHQ WKH UHDVRQ IRU KLV >/)nVVXFFHVV LV WKDW D VLQJOH GHWDLO RU FRQWRXU LV VXIILFLHQW WR VSHFLI\ WKH REMHFWnV LGHQWLW\ YLVXDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ KDV EHFRPH D fORJLFDO SURFHVV UDWKHU WKDQ D YLVXDO RQHn S f 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW SURVRSDJQRVLD LV QRW WKH UHVXOW RI D GLVUXSWLRQ RI D VSHFLILF IDFH SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP D FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW LV IXUWKHU VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH LPSDLUPHQW LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD LV QRW OLPLWHG WR KXPDQ IDFHV )DXVW FLWHG LQ %DXHU f UHSRUWHG D SDWLHQW ZKR EHFDPH XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH DPRQJ FKDLUV ZKLOH /KHUPLWWH DQG 3LOORQ FLWHG LQ %DXHU f GHVFULEHG D SDWLHQW ZKR FRXOG QRW UHFRJQL]H VSHFLILF DXWRPRELOHV 6LPLODUO\ %RUQVWHLQ DQG FROOHDJXHV %RUQVWHLQ %RUQVWHLQ 6URND t 0XQLW] f KDYH GHVFULEHG D ELUGZDWFKHU DQG D IDUPHU ZKR EHFDPH XQDEOH WR UHFRJQL]H ELUGV DQG KLV LQGLYLGXDO FRZV UHVSHFWLYHO\ /) RXU SURVRSDJQRVLFf UHSRUWV EHLQJ XQDEOH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH PDNH DQG PRGHO RI FDUV DQG PDNH WHPSRUDO DVVRFLDWLRQV WR FORWKLQJ DQG DXWRPRELOH VW\OHV 'DPDVLR HW DO f

PAGE 31

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f %DXHU f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKLV XVLQJ DXWRQRPLF PHDVXUHV +H FRQVWUXFWHG WZR VHWV RI IDFLDO VWLPXOL FRQWDLQLQJ f IDFHV RI FHOHEULWLHV DQG f IDPLO\ PHPEHUV (DFK IDFH ZDV SUHVHQWHG IRU VHFRQGV ZKLOH ILYH QDPHV RQH RI ZKLFK ZDV WKH WDUJHW ZHUH UHDG DORXG ZKLOH VNLQ FRQGXFWDQFH ZDV PHDVXUHG $OO QDPHV ZLWKLQ D VHW ZHUH IURP WKH VDPH VHPDQWLF FDWHJRU\ )RU H[DPSOH LI %LQJ &URVE\nV IDFH ZDV SUHVHQWHG DOO WKH DOWHUQDWLYH QDPHV ZHUH DFWRUV RU VLQJHUV :KHQ D IDPLO\ PHPEHUnV IDFH ZDV SUHVHQWHG DOO WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV ZHUH QDPHV IURP WKH SHUVRQnV QXFOHDU IDPLO\ 0D[LPXP VNLQ FRQGXFWDQFH UHVSRQVHV RFFXUUHG WR b RI FRUUHFW IDFHQDPH SDLULQJV LQ D SURVRSDJQRVLF GHVSLWH WKH SDWLHQWnV LQDELOLW\ WR RYHUWO\ LGHQWLI\ DQ\ RI WKH IDFHV 7UDQHO DQG 'DPDVLR f DQG %DXHU DQG 9HUIDHOOLH f UHSOLFDWHG WKLV ILQGLQJ

PAGE 32

'H+DDQ
PAGE 33

7KXV GHVSLWH SURIRXQG IDLOXUH RI PHPRU\ ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WHVWV ZKRVH LQVWUXFWLRQV UHTXLUH UHIHUHQFH WR D SULRU OHDUQLQJ HSLVRGH GLUHFW PHDVXUHV HJ UHFRJQLWLRQf SURVRSDJQRVLFV FDQ XQGHU FHUWDLQ FLUFXPVWDQFHV GHPRQVWUDWH NQRZOHGJH RQ WHVWV LQ ZKLFK IDFLOLWDWLRQ RU PRGLILFDWLRQ RI SHUIRUPDQFH LQGLFDWHV WKH FRQWHQWV RI PHPRU\ ZLWKRXW GLUHFW UHIHUHQFH WR WKRVH FRQWHQWV VRFDOOHG LQGLUHFW PHDVXUHV FI -RKQVRQ t +DVKHU 5LFKDUVRQ.ODYHKQ t %MRUN +LQW]PDQ f 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV UHOHYDQW WR GLVFXVVLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG PHPRU\ SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKHVH WDVNV $FFRUGLQJ WR 5HLQJROG DQG 0HULNOH f 7KH VHQVLWLYLW\ RI D GLUHFW GLVFULPLQDWLRQ LV DVVXPHG WR EH JUHDWHU WKDQ RU HTXDO WR WKH VHQVLWLYLW\ RI D FRPSDUDEOH LQGLUHFW GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WR FRQVFLRXV WDVN UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ S f 7KH LPSOLFDWLRQ RI WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ LV WKDW XQFRQVFLRXV >RU LPSOLFLW 6FKDFWHU @ PHPRU\ SURFHVVHV DUH LPSOLFDWHG ZKHQHYHU DQ LQGLUHFW PHDVXUH VKRZV JUHDWHU VHQVLWLYLW\ WKDQ D FRPSDUDEOH GLUHFW PHDVXUH 0HULNOH t 5HLQJROG S f 7KXV LW FDQ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW WKH QRUPDO SHUIRUPDQFH RI SURVRSDJQRVLFV RQ LQGLUHFW IDFH SURFHVVLQJ WDVNV UHSUHVHQWV WKH IXQFWLRQLQJ RI XQFRQVFLRXV RU LPSOLFLWf PHPRU\ SURFHVVHV 7KLV VXSSRUWV WKH FRQWHQWLRQ RI 'H+DDQ HW DO f WKDW SURVRSDJQRVLD LV WKH UHVXOW RI D IDLOXUH WR FRQVFLRXVO\ DFFHVV LQWDFW IDFLDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV

PAGE 34

%HKDYLRUDO (YLGHQFH %HKDYLRUDO HYLGHQFH WKDW IDFHV DUH SURFHVVHG YLD D VSHFLDO V\VWHP LV OLPLWHG EXW GRHV H[LVW
PAGE 35

FODVV RI VWLPXOL FRPHV IURP VWXGLHV RI VLQJOH FHOO UHFRUGLQJ IURP WKH EUDLQV RI KXPDQV DQG PRQNH\V +HLW 6PLWK DQG +DOJUHQ f LPSODQWHG ELODWHUDO GHSWK HOHFWURGHV LQ WKH PHGLDO WHPSRUDO OREH RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK LQWUDFWDEOH VHL]XUHV LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR ORFDWH WKHLU VHL]XUH IRFXV 7KH\ IRXQG VRPH FHOOV LQ WKH ULJKW KLSSRFDPSXV ZKLFK UHVSRQGHG WR VSHFLILF IDFHV 7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK 0LOQHUnV f ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH PRVW VHYHUH IDFH PHPRU\ GHIHFW DPRQJ WHPSRUDO OREH UHVHFWLRQ SDWLHQWV RFFXUUHG ZLWK KLSSRFDPSDO LQYROYHPHQW /HRQDUG 5ROOV :LOVRQ DQG %D\OLV f IRXQG IDFH VHOHFWLYH QHXURQV LQ WKH DP\JGDOD RI PRQNH\V 7KHVH QHXURQV ZHUH VHQVLWLYH WR WZR DQG WKUHHGLPHQVLRQ KXPDQ DQG PRQNH\ IDFHV ZKLOH EHLQJ UHODWLYHO\ XQUHVSRQVLYH WR JUDWLQJV VLPSOH JHRPHWULF DQG FRPSOH[ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO VWLPXOL DQG WR DURXVLQJ DQG DYHUVLYH VWLPXOL 7KHVH QHXURQV UHVSRQGHG GLIIHUHQWO\ WR GLIIHUHQW IDFHV DQG VRPHWLPHV UHVSRQGHG WR SDUWV RI IDFHV %D\OLV HW DO f UHSRUWHG VLPLODU QHXURQV LQ WKH PLGGOH DQG DQWHULRU SRUWLRQ RI WKH VXSHULRU WHPSRUDO VXOFXV 2QH LPSRUWDQW IHDWXUH RI WKHVH QHXURQV LV WKDW ZKLOH WKH\ UHVSRQGHG GLIIHUHQWO\ WR GLIIHUHQW IDFHV WKH\ GLG QRW UHVSRQG RQO\ WR RQH IDFH :KDW WKLV PHDQV LV WKDW WKH SDWWHUQ RI QHXURQDO ILULQJ DFURVV D JURXS RI IDFH QHXURQV FDQ FRGH PDQ\ PRUH IDFHV WKDQ LI RQH QHXURQ ZHUH GHYRWHG WR HDFK IDFH DQG PD\ UHSUHVHQW SDUDOOHO GLVWULEXWHG SURFHVVLQJ

PAGE 36

6XPPDU\} 7KH VXEWOH SHUFHSWXDO GHIHFW VHHQ LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD LV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR UXOH RXW WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI D VSHFLDO IDFH SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP IRU VHYHUDO UHDVRQV )LUVW WKH IDPLOLDU IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ DVVRFLDWLYH SURVRSDJQRVLD LV GLVVRFLDWHG IURP WKH JURVV YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO DELOLWLHV DVVHVVHG E\ PDQ\ RI WKH LGHQWLW\ WDVNV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH ODWHUDOLW\ VHFWLRQ 6HFRQG DV 6KDOOLFH f VR FOHDUO\ LQGLFDWHV WKH VLPSOH DVVRFLDWLRQ RI LPSDLUPHQWV LQ WKLV FDVH HLWKHU VXEWOH YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO GLIILFXOWLHV RU WKH ORVV RI DELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H ELUG VSHFLHV ZLWK IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ LPSDLUPHQWf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f IRXQG D OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG

PAGE 37

/)9 ULJKW KHPLVSKHUHf DGYDQWDJH IRU H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DV GHVFULEHG LQ DQ HDUOLHU VHFWLRQf HYHQ DIWHU WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKHLU IDFH LGHQWLW\ WDVN ZDV SDUWLDOOHG RXW $ VLPLODU HIIHFW ZDV UHSRUWHG E\ 3L]]DPLJOLR =RFFRORWWL 0DPPXFDUL DQG &HVDURQL f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f 7KH VHFRQG W\SH RI HYLGHQFH ZKLFK /H\ DQG 6WUDXVV f DUJXH VXSSRUWV WKH QRWLRQ RI LQGHSHQGHQW SURFHVVHV XQGHUO\LQJ H[SUHVVLRQ DQG IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ LV WKH ILQGLQJ RI GLIIHUHQW SDWWHUQV RI ODWHUDO DV\PPHWU\ IRU WKH WZR W\SHV RI WDVNV 7KH\ QRWH WKDW PRVW UHVHDUFKHUV HJ /H\ t %U\GHQ 6XEHUL t 0F.HHYHU f ILQG D OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG DGYDQWDJH RQ ERWK H[SUHVVLRQ DQG LGHQWLW\ WDVNV EXW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH VL]H RI WKH OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG DGYDQWDJH EHWZHHQ WDVNV VXJJHVWV WKDW VHYHUDO WDVNUHODWHG IDFWRUV PD\ EH LPSRUWDQW $V QRWHG HDUOLHU LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH JUHDWHU OHIW YLVXDO ILHOG

PAGE 38

DGYDQWDJH LQ SURFHVVLQJ HPRWLRQDO IDFHV RFFXUV EHFDXVH WKH DGGLWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ UHVXOWV LQ D PRUH VSDWLDOO\ FRPSOH[ VWLPXOXV WKDQ D IDFH ZLWKRXW DIIHFW DQG LV WKXV SURFHVVHG OHVV HIIHFWLYHO\ E\ WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH ZKLFK GRHVQnW KDQGOH FRQILJXUDO PDWHULDO DV ZHOO DV WKH ULJKW 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV 0F.HHYHU DQG 'L[RQ f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f XVLQJ WDVNV VLPLODU WR WKRVH RI 'H.RVN\ HW DO f IRXQG WKDW ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV ZHUH LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR WKH QRUPDO FRQWUROV DQG OHIW KHPLVSKHUH SDWLHQWV RQ DOO WDVNV 8QOLNH WKH UHVXOWV RI 'H.RVN\ HW DO f WKLV LPSDLUPHQW UHPDLQHG DIWHU SDUWLDOOLQJ RXW

PAGE 39

SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH IDFH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ VXEWHVW WR FRQWURO IRU YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO DELOLW\ :KDW LV VXJJHVWHG LV WKDW WKH ULJKWKHPLVSKHUH VXSHULRULW\ IRU SURFHVVLQJ IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ PD\ H[LVW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI LWV YLVXRVSDWLDO DELOLW\ %RZHUV DQG +HLOPDQ f SURSRVHG WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D ULJKWKHPLVSKHUH LFRQLF ILHOG ZKLFK FRQVLVWV RI D FRUSXV RI SLFWRULDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RU VFKHPDWD >DQG@ LV DVVXPHG LPSRUWDQW IRU FDWHJRUL]LQJ DQG LQWHUQDOO\ UHSUHVHQWLQJ YLVXDO LPDJHV S f 7KLV LFRQLF ILHOG ZRXOG FRQWDLQ WKH VFKHPD RU SURWRW\SHV IRU DIIHFWLYH H[SUHVVLRQV DQG WKH IDLOXUH RI WKH IDFLDO SHUFHSW WR DFFHVV WKLV ILHOG HLWKHU EHFDXVH RI GLVFRQQHFWLRQ RU GHVWUXFWLRQ ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ D IDLOXUH RI DIIHFWLYH H[SUHVVLRQ LGHQWLILFDWLRQ 3URVRSDJQRVLD $ QXPEHU RI SURVRSDJQRVLF FDVHV KDYH EHHQ UHSRUWHG ZKR KDYH KDG GLIILFXOW\ UHFRJQL]LQJ IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ HJ %H\Q t .Q\D]HYD %RUQVWHLQ t .LGURQ %DXHU f +RZHYHU WKH SUHVHQFH RI UHODWLYHO\ LQWDFW IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ LQ RWKHU FDVHV HJ %UX\HU HW DO &ROH t 3HUH]&UXHW 'H+DDQ HW DO 7UDQHO 'DPDVLR t 'DPDVLR f LQGLFDWHV WKDW LPSDLUHG H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ LV QRW D QHFHVVDU\ FRPSRQHQW RI WKH V\QGURPH RI SURVRSDJQRVLD DQG VXSSRUWV WKH FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ LV DW OHDVW SDUWO\ LQGHSHQGHQW RI IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ

PAGE 40

(SLOHSWLF 3DWLHQWV ,W]KDN )ULHG DQG FROOHDJXHV )ULHG 0DWHHU 2MHPDQ :RKQV DQG )HGLR f KDG DZDNH VHL]XUH SDWLHQWV FRPSOHWH WDVNV PHDVXULQJ SHUFHSWLRQ DQG VKRUWWHUP PHPRU\ IRU OLQH RULHQWDWLRQ DQG XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV GXULQJ VHL]XUH VXUJHU\ ZKLOH GLUHFWO\ VWLPXODWLQJ GLIIHUHQW FRUWLFDO DUHDV 6WLPXODWLRQ RI WKH QRQGRPLQDQW SRVWHULRU SRUWLRQ RI WKH VXSHULRU WHPSRUDO J\UXV UHVXOWHG LQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ SHUFHSWLRQ GLVFULPLQDWLRQf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

PAGE 41

&RJQLWLYH 0RGHO RI )DFH 3URFHVVLQJ 7KH SURFHVVHV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ DQG IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ DUH WKHPVHOYHV PDGH XS RI D QXPEHU RI VXESURFHVVHV $ QXPEHU RI DWWHPSWV KDYH EHHQ PDGH WR GHVFULEH WKH VWDJHV RI FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVLQJ LQYROYHG LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI IDFHV %DGGHOH\ f GHVFULEHG D IUDPHZRUN IRU GLVFXVVLQJ IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ ZKLFK GLVWLQJXLVKHG EHWZHHQ WZR VXEGRPDLQV RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ RQH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH IHDWXUH DQG WRSRJUDSK\ RI WKH IDFH IDFLDO VXEGRPDLQf DQG WKH RWKHU FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKHLU UHDO RU LPDJLQHG VHPDQWLF DVVRFLDWHV VHPDQWLF VXEGRPDLQf 8QIDPLOLDU IDFHV ZRXOG KDYH VRPH OLPLWHG DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH VHPDQWLF VXEGRPDLQ DV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH H[LVWHQFH RI IDFLDO VWHUHRW\SHVf ZKLOH IDPLOLDU IDFHV ZRXOG OLQN ZLWK D EURDGHU GRPDLQ RI RXU PHPRU\ V\VWHP WKDQ LV WKH FDVH ZLWK DQ XQIDPLOLDU IDFH S f 7KH PDLQ WKHPHV RI WKLV IUDPHZRUN WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI WKH SK\VLFDO IHDWXUHV RI D IDFH DQG LWV DFFHVV WR VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ IDPLOLDU DQG XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV KDYH EHHQ DPSOLILHG DQG HODERUDWHG XSRQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ E\ RWKHU %ULWLVK UHVHDUFKHUV %UXFH %UXFH t
PAGE 42

([SUHVVLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 1DPH /DEHO &RGHV &RGHV JLAH $ FRJQLWLYH PRGHO RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ VKRZLQJ WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO ORFDWLRQ RI WKH IXQFWLRQDO OHVLRQV LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD f DQG 5+' DQGRU f

PAGE 43

DQG UHFRJQLWLRQ DV GHVFULEHG LQ WKLV PRGHO LV QRW D XQLWDU\ SKHQRPHQRQ EXW FRQVLVWV RI GLVVRFLDEOH VXESURFHVVHV ZKLFK FRQVLVW RI PRUH HODERUDWH GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH SURFHVVLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH IDFLDO DQG VHPDQWLF VXEGRPDLQV 7KH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ GHVFULEHV WKH PRGHO +DG\Q (OOLV f QRWHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR RQH YHUVLRQ RI WKLV PRGHO 7KLV PRGHO LV D K\EULG RI WKRVH DOUHDG\ LQ H[LVWHQFH DQG LV RIIHUHG DV D KHXULVWLF UDWKHU D GHILQLWLYH H[SODQDWLRQ S f 7KLV VWDWHPHQW LV WUXH LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKLV PRGHO DV ZHOO FRQVHTXHQWO\ WKHUH UHPDLQV VRPH GLVDJUHHPHQW DERXW DVSHFWV RI LW $UHDV RI GLVDJUHHPHQW DUH DOVR GHVFULEHG EHORZ $W LWV HDUOLHVW VWDJH 6WUXFWXUDO (QFRGLQJ UHVXOWV LQ D VHW RI FRGHV ZKLFK DOORZ WKH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RI IDFLDO IURP QRQIDFLDO SDWWHUQV (OOLV f 2QH PLJKW LPDJLQH DSSHUFHSWLYH SURVRSDJQRVLD DV D EUHDNGRZQ HDUO\ LQ WKLV VWDJH 8OWLPDWHO\ 6WUXFWXUDO (QFRGLQJ SURGXFHV DQ LQWHUFRQQHFWHG VHW RI GHVFULSWLRQVf§VRPH GHVFULELQJ WKH FRQILJXUDWLRQ RI WKH ZKROH IDFH DQG VRPH GHVFULELQJ WKH GHWDLOV RI SDUWLFXODU IHDWXUHV %UXFH t
PAGE 44

ZKLOH ERWK LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO HJ KDLUVW\OHf IHDWXUHV DUH LPSRUWDQW IRU UHFRJQLWLRQ RI XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV (OOLV 6KHSKHUG t 'DYLHV (QGR 7DNDKDVKL t 0DUX\DPD f 7KH UHVXOW RI VWUXFWXUDO SURFHVVLQJ LV D VHW RI VWUXFWXUDO FRGHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ D SUHVHQWHG IDFH 7KHVH FRGHV DUH WKH EDVLV RI UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG H[SUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV GLVFXVVLRQV RI ZKLFK IROORZ $ IDFH LV DOOHJHGO\ UHFRJQL]HG ZKHQ WKHUH LV D PDWFK EHWZHHQ LWV HQFRGHG VWUXFWXUDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WKH SURGXFW RI VWUXFWXUDO HQFRGLQJf DQG D VWRUHG VWUXFWXUDO FRGH ZKLFK LV UHIHUUHG WR DV D )DFH 5HFRJQLWLRQ 8QLWf )58 %UXFH t
PAGE 45

IDFH FDQ VHHP IDPLOLDU DQGRU ORRN OLNH D NQRZQ IDFH \HW QRW EH PLVWDNHQ IRU D NQRZQ SHUVRQ $FWLYDWLRQ RI DQ )58 DOORZV DFFHVV WR WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG ZLWKLQ WKH 3HUVRQ ,GHQWLW\ 1RGHV $FFRUGLQJ WR %UXFH DQG
PAGE 46

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f 3XW VLPSO\ ZKDW WKLV PHDQV LV WKDW DQ XQIDPLOLDU SHUVRQ ZKR ORRNV D ORW OLNH 5REHUW 5HGIRUG PD\ EH FDWHJRUL]HG DV DQ DFWRU LQ DQ RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH WDVN 7KLV SRVLWLRQ DUJXHV WKDW XQNQRZQ IDFHV DFFHVV WKH VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW NQRZQ IDFHV LQ GLUHFW UHODWLRQ WR WKH GHJUHH RI UHVHPEODQFH EHWZHHQ WKH XQNQRZQ DQG NQRZQ IDFHV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG DQ XQIDPLOLDU IDFH PD\ UHVHPEOH QRW DQ LQGLYLGXDO NQRZQ IDFH EXW D FRPSRVLWH EDVHG RQ H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PDQ\ IDFHV $FWLYDWLRQ RI WKH FRPSRVLWH RU SURWRW\SH )58 PD\ WKHQ DOORZ DFFHVV WR WKH VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK WKH FRQWULEXWLQJ IDFHV KDYH LQ FRPPRQ 6XSSRUW IRU WKH H[LVWHQFH RI DEVWUDFW SURWRW\SH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV H[LVWV )DPRXV IDFHV DUH PRUH HDVLO\ UHFRJQL]HG DW D VHFRQG SUHVHQWDWLRQ WKDQ DUH XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV (OOLV 6KHSKHUG t 'DYLHV .ODW]N\ t )RUUHVW
PAGE 47

DWWULEXWH WR WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D IDLUO\ DEVWUDFW UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH IDPLOLDU IDFHV .ODW]N\ HW DO Df IRXQG WKDW KLJKO\ VWHUHRW\SLF XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV ZHUH PRUH HDVLO\ UHFRJQL]HG WKDQ ORZ VWHUHRW\SLF XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV D ILQGLQJ ZKLFK ZDV DOVR DWWULEXWHG WR WKH H[LVWHQFH RI DQ DEVWUDFW UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ IRU HDFK SDUWLFXODU VWHUHRW\SH 7KXV WKH YLVXDOO\GHULYHG VHPDQWLF FRGHV PD\ UHIOHFW WKH DFWLYDWLRQ RI VSHFLDO )58nV ZKLFK DUH FUHDWHG DV WKH UHVXOW RI H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW IDFHV )RU GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ SURWRW\SH DQG H[HPSODU PRGHOV RI FODVVLILFDWLRQ VHH $EGL DQG 0HGLQ DQG 6FKDIIHU f %UXFH DQG
PAGE 48

FRGH DOORZV IDFHV WR EH FDWHJRUL]HG LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQV 7KH H[SUHVVLRQ FRGHV PD\ EH WKRXJKW RI DV SDUW RI WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH LFRQLF ILHOG GHVFULEHG E\ %RZHUV DQG +HLOPDQ f $FWLYDWLRQ RI ERWK WKH ,GHQWLW\6SHFLILF 6HPDQWLF &RGHV DQG ([SUHVVLRQ &RGHV DOORZV DFFHVV WR 1DPH &RGHV DQG ([SUHVVLRQ /DEHO &RGHV ZKLFK WKHQ DOORZ DQ DSSURSULDWH QDPH RU ODEHO WR EH JHQHUDWHG $FWLYDWLRQ RI DQ DSSURSULDWH QDPH RU H[SUHVVLRQ ODEHO FDQ DOVR DOORZ DFFHVV WR WKH 3HUVRQ ,GHQWLW\ 1RGHV DQG ([SUHVVLRQ &RGHV UHVSHFWLYHO\
PAGE 49

IHHOLQJ RI IDPLOLDULW\ ZKLFK SURVRSDJQRVLFV GR QRW H[SHULHQFH +RZHYHU ZKDW VHHPV HTXDOO\ FOHDU LV WKDW WKH VWUXFWXUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW IDPLOLDU IDFHV KHOG LQ WKH )58nV LV LQWDFW EHFDXVH LW LQIOXHQFHV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ LQGLUHFW WDVNV 6LPLODUO\ VWUXFWXUDO HQFRGLQJ LV JURVVO\ XQLPSDLUHG WKRXJK VXEWOH GHIHFWV LQ VRPH DVSHFW RI WKLV SURFHVV H[LVW 7KXV WKH REVHUYHG LPSDLUPHQW LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD DSSHDUV WR UHVXOW IURP D IXQFWLRQDO GLVFRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH RXWSXW RI 6WUXFWXUDO (QFRGLQJ DQG WKH )58nV ZKLFK SUHYHQWV )58 DFWLYDWLRQ WKH )58nV DQG WKH ,GHQWLW\VSHFLILF 6HPDQWLF &RGHV UHPDLQ LQWDFW DQG VXSSRUW LQGLUHFW WDVN SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH K\SRWKHVL]HG ORFDWLRQ RI WKLV IXQFWLRQDO OHVLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG LQ )LJXUH ,Q ULJKW FHUHEUDO KHPLVSKHUH GLVHDVH DQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H IDFLDO DIIHFW LV FRPPRQO\ VHHQ ZKLOH IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ LV LQWDFW 7ZR H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKLV ILQGLQJ DUH SRVVLEOH )LUVW WKH IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFW FRXOG EH WKH UHVXOW RI GDPDJH WR WKH H[SUHVVLRQ FRGHV WKHPVHOYHV %RZHUV t +HLOPDQ f 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ LV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ D IXQFWLRQDO OHVLRQ DW LQ )LJXUH 6HFRQG WKH H[SUHVVLRQ FRGHV PD\ EH FRPSOHWHO\ LQWDFW EXW GLVFRQQHFWHG IURP WKH LQSXW RI VWUXFWXUDO HQFRGLQJ )LJXUH f UHVXOWLQJ LQ DQ H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ LPSDLUPHQW URXJKO\ DQDORJRXV WR WKH LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ GHIHFW VHHQ LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD 7KXV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV ZRXOG

PAGE 50

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t :DOVWHU f 7KH SK\VLFDO IHDWXUHV RI D IDFH FDQ DOVR EH XVHG LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI RWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ WR PDNH VXEMHFWLYH MXGJHPHQWV DERXW QRQREVHUYDEOH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH SHUVRQ LQFOXGLQJ SV\FKRORJLFDO WUDLWV SRWHQWLDO EHKDYLRU OLNHDELOLW\ RU RFFXSDWLRQDO VWDWXV DQG WKHVH MXGJHPHQWV DUH DOVR PDGH ZLWK D VXUSULVLQJ GHJUHH RI FRQVLVWHQF\ DFURVV REVHUYHUV 'LRQ HW DO *ROGVWHLQ &KDQFH t *LOEHUW .ODW]N\ HW DO D E 6HFRUG 7KRUQWRQ f 7KHVH QRQREVHUYDEOH DWWULEXWHV FDQ EH URXJKO\ GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JHQHUDO FDWHJRULHV nf3HUVRQDOLW\ DWWULEXWHV UHIHU WR SRWHQWLDO EHKDYLRU RI DQG TXDOLW\ RI WKH VRFLDO

PAGE 51

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f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

PAGE 52

IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ SOD\V D UROH LQ VRPH SHUVRQDOLW\ MXGJHPHQWV 6HFRUG f LQGLFDWHG WKDW RQH ILQGLQJ UHSHDWHGO\ FRQILUPHG LQ KLV ZRUN ZDV WKDW MXGJHV DJUHH LQ DWWULEXWLQJ FHUWDLQ SHUVRQDOLW\ LPSUHVVLRQV WR IDFHV ZLWK SDUWLFXODU SK\VLRJQRPLF FXHV DQG DUJXHG WKDW WKH SHUFHLYHU VHOHFWLYHO\ DWWHQGV WR FHUWDLQ DVSHFWV RI WKH IDFH DQG XVHG UHDG\PDGH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV S f 7KXV LQ IHPDOHV WKH DPRXQW RI OLSVWLFN UHODWHG SRVLWLYHO\ WR VH[XDOLW\ ZKLOH ERZHG OLSV SURGXFH WKH LPSUHVVLRQ RI EHLQJ FRQFHLWHG GHPDQGLQJ LPPRUDO DQG UHFHSWLYH WR WKH DWWHQWLRQV RI PHQ 2OGHU PHQ ZHUH VHHQ DV PRUH GLVWLQJXLVKHG UHVSRQVLEOH DQG UHILQHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ GDUNHU VNLQ ZDV DVVRFLDWH ZLWK KLJKHU UDWLQJV RI KRVWLOLW\ ERRULVKQHVV XQIULHQGOLQHVV DQG ODFN RI VHQVH RI KXPRU )LQDOO\ KH DUJXHG WKDW FRPPRQO\ DJUHHGXSRQ IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ DFFRXQW IRU VRPH SRUWLRQ RI WKH LPSUHVVLRQ ZKLFK DUH IRUPHG LQ ORRNLQJ DW D SKRWRJUDSK 6HFRUG FRQFOXGHG WKDW FXOWXUDO IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWH WR WKH DWWULEXWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ VHYHUDO ZD\V )LUVW WKH FXOWXUH SODFHV VHOHFWLYH HPSKDVLV XSRQ FHUWDLQ FXHV HJ WKH DPRXQW RI OLSVWLFN D ZRPDQ ZHDUV LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH VKDSH RI KHU HDUV 6HFRQG WKH FXOWXUH SURYLGHV UHDG\PDGH FDWHJRULHV ZKLFK FRQVLVW RI GHQRWDWLYH FXHV DQG DVVRFLDWHG SHUVRQDOLW\ DWWULEXWHV DV LQ DJHVH[ UROHV RU LQ HWKQLF VWHUHRW\SHV )LQDOO\ YDULRXV IRUPV RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ KDYH EHFRPH HVWDEOLVKHG

PAGE 53

DV KDYLQJ DW OHDVW SDUWO\ DJUHHGXSRQ PHDQLQJV LQ RXU FXOWXUHf S f 2FFXSDWLRQDO &DWHJRU\ $WWULEXWLRQV .ODW]N\ HW DO Ef GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW QRUPDOV FDQ H[WUDFW RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP IDFHV WKDW LV FRQVLVWHQW DFURVV MXGJHV 6KH DVNHG VWXGHQWV WR GHVFULEH PHQWDO SURWRW\SHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKLUWHHQ SDUWLFXODU RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV HJ DWKOHWH IDUPHU ZDWFKPDNHUf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f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ODEHOV FRXOG SULPH D IDFHQRQIDFH GHFLVLRQ XVLQJ VWURQJ FDWHJRU\ H[HPSODUV DV WDUJHWV 7KHVH H[HPSODUV ZHUH VHOHFWHG EDVHG RQ WKH GDWD IURP WKH VWXG\ GHVFULEHG DERYH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WKHQ SUHVHQWHG DQ RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ODEHO IROORZHG E\ WZR KDOYHV RI D IDFH DQG ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH WZR KDOYHV ZHUH IURP WKH VDPH IDFH ,Q WKH &RQJUXHQW

PAGE 54

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f GHPRQVWUDWHG GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW DFFHVV WR RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ IDFHV ZLWK QRUPDOV 6XPPDU\ 7ZR LPSRUWDQW WKLQJV VKRXOG EH JOHDQHG IURP WKH VWXGLHV LQWR WKH DWWULEXWLRQV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV WR XQNQRZQ IDFHV )LUVW MXGJHV DUH DEOH WR PDNH WKHVH DWWULEXWLRQV ZLWK UHPDUNDEOH FRQVLVWHQF\ 6HFRQG DV 6HFRUG f HPSKDVL]HG WKHVH DWWULEXWLRQV DUH EDVHG RQ VKDUHG FXOWXUDO H[SHULHQFH ZKLFK KDV UHVXOWHG LQ UHDG\PDGH FDWHJRULHV IRU SDUWLFXODU IHDWXUHV RU FRQILJXUDWLRQV RI IHDWXUHV 7KH LPSOLFDWLRQ LV WKDW WZR SHRSOH IURP WKH VDPH FXOWXUH ZRXOG EH DEOH WR H[WUDFW IURP D VWLPXOXV IDFH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK ZRXOG OHDG WR VLPLODU MXGJHPHQWV FRQFHUQLQJ QRQREVHUYDEOH DWWULEXWHV RI WKH IDFH &RQFHSWXDOO\ LQIHUHQFHV DERXW WKH QRQREVHUYDEOH

PAGE 55

DWWULEXWHV RI DQ XQNQRZQ SHUVRQV EDVHG RQ SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH DUH D IRUP RI VWHUHRW\SH 7KXV WKHVH WZR W\SHV RI DWWULEXWLRQV SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG RFFXSDWLRQf ZLOO EH UHIHUUHG WR KHUHDIWHU DV SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SHV 3XUSRVH RI WKLV 6WXG\ %UXFH DQG
PAGE 56

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f 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR H[DPLQH WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI H[SUHVVLRQ DQG LGHQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI 9LVXDOO\GHULYHG 6HPDQWLF &RGHV E\ DVVHVVLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI QHXURORJLFDOO\ QRUPDO LQGLYLGXDOV ULJKW DQG OHIWKHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG LQGLYLGXDOV 1+' 5+' DQG /+' UHVSHFWLYHO\f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

PAGE 57

SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SHV 6HFRQG ERWK LQWXLWLRQ DQG UHVHDUFK HJ 6HFRUG 7KRUQWRQ f VXJJHVW WKDW WKH WZR W\SHV RI VWHUHRW\SHV PD\ EH GLIIHUHQWLDOO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ DQG LGHQWLW\ SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHPV 7KXV ZH ZLOO DVVHVV IXQFWLRQLQJ LQ WKH IROORZLQJ IRXU GRPDLQV RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ DELOLW\ f UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ f UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ f LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SHV DQG f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
PAGE 58

0F:HHQ\ DQG +D\ f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f LQWHUIHUHG ZLWK WKHLU DELOLW\ WR FODVVLI\ WKH QDPH LQ WHUPV RI RFFXSDWLRQ UHODWLYH WR WKH FRQGLWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH IDFH DQG QDPH ZHUH RI WKH VDPH SHUVRQ &RQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQf 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI SURVRSDJQRVLFV 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVV VHH HDUOLHU GLVFXVVLRQf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

PAGE 59

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f )LUVW VLQFH 1+' DQG /+' SDWLHQWV GR QRW 5RHGLJHU f KDV SRLQWHG RXW WKDW SRRU SHUIRUPDQFH RQ LQGLUHFW WDVNV FDQ RFFXU EHFDXVH WKH LQLWLDO PRGH RI SURFHVVLQJ RI D VWLPXOXV LV GLIIHUHQW IURP LWV PRGH RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ DW WHVW )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ WKH WDUJHW LQIRUPDWLRQ LV LQLWLDOO\ SURFHVVHG FRQFHSWXDOO\ LQ WHUPV RI LWV PHDQLQJ ZKLOH WKH LQGLUHFW WDVN PDNHV VLJQLILFDQW XVH RI WKH SHUFHSWXDO IHDWXUHV RI WKH WDUJHW WKHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH LQGLUHFW WDVN PD\ EH ZRUVH UHODWLYH WR GLUHFW WDVN SHUIRUPDQFH HJ -DFRE\ f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ RQH LQGLUHFW WDVN FDQ EH LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR SHUIRUPDQFH RQ DQRWKHU LQGLUHFW WDVN LI WKH VWLPXOL XVHG LQ WKH LQLWLDO H[SRVXUH DUH GLIIHUHQW LQ IRUP RQ WKH WHVW HJ LQLWLDO H[SRVXUH WR D SLFWXUH RI D KRXVH WKHQ WHVW ZLWK WKH ZRUG KRXVH FRPSDUHG WR WHVWLQJ ZLWK WKH SLFWXUH RI WKH KRXVH HJ :HOGRQ t 5RHGLJHU H[SHULPHQW f

PAGE 60

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f ZKLFK

PAGE 61

VHHLWWVf PRVW WKHRUHWLFDOO\ DQG LQWXLWLYHO\ VRXQG )URP D WKHRUHWLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH %UXFH DQG
PAGE 62

SHUVRQ RU WKURXJK WKH PHGLD ZKR ZRUNV LQ WKDW MRE LH FDOO VRPHRQH D ODERUHU EHFDXVH KH ORRNV OLNH \RXU FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZRUNHU FRXVLQ RU $UFKLH %XQNHUf 7KXV WKH PRGHO LQ )LJXUH VXJJHVWV WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZLOO EH LPSDLUHG ERWK RQ MXGJHPHQW RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ ZKLOH UHPDLQLQJ XQLPSDLUHG RQ WHVWV RI LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH MXGJPHQW 7KH SURVRSDJQRVLF RI FRXUVH VKRXOG VKRZ WKH RSSRVLWH SDWWHUQ ,QGLUHFW 7HVWV 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH UHOHYDQW IDFLDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV DUH GLVUXSWHG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ ERWK WKH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW PHDVXUHV WDSSLQJ WKH DELOLW\ WR SURFHVV WKDW W\SH RI IDFLDO VWLPXOXV ZLOO EH LPSDLUHG )RU H[DPSOH %RZHUV DQG +HLOPDQ f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

PAGE 63

L )LJXUH +\SRWKHWLFDO FRJQLWLYH PRGHO RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ

PAGE 64

LGHQWLILFDWLRQf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

PAGE 65

&+$37(5 0(7+2'6 $1' 5(68/76 0HWKRGV 6XEMHFWV 3URVRSDFPRVLF 3DWLHQW /) ZKR KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG IUHTXHQWO\ HJ %DXHU %DXHU t 7UREH *UHYH t %DXHU f LV D \HDUROG PDOH ZLWK \HDUV RI HGXFDWLRQ ZKR LQ VXVWDLQHG ELODWHUDO RFFLSLWRWHPSRUDO KHPDWRPDV DV WKH UHVXOW RI D PRWRUF\FOH DFFLGHQW ZKLFK OHIW KLP ZLWK SURIRXQG DQG VWDEOH SURVRSDJQRVLD GHFUHDVHG FRORU YLVLRQ DQ DOWLWXGLQDO KHPLDQRSLD ZLWK D OHIW LQIHULRU FRQJUXRXV TXDGUDQWDQRSLD DQG GHFUHDVHG HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVLYHQHVV WR YLVXDO VWLPXOL 6HH 7DEOH IRU D FRPSDULVRQ RI 2XU SURVRSDJQRVLFV DJH HGXFDWLRQ :$,65 9RFDEXODU\ 6FDOHG 6FRUH DQG WLPH SRVW LQMXU\ 73,f ZLWK WKH RWKHU SDWLHQW DQG FRQWURO JURXSV 8QLODWHUDO 6WURNH 3DWLHQWV 7KH VWURNH SDWLHQWV ZHUH WHQ ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV 5+' PHDQ DJH VG PHDQ HGXFDWLRQ VG f DQG WHQ OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV /+' PHDQ DJH VG PHDQ HGXFDWLRQ VG f ZKR ZHUH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ RQJRLQJ QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO VWXGLHV DW WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 9HWHUDQV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 0HGLFDO &HQWHU $OO

PAGE 66

7DEOH &RPSDULVRQV RI 3DWLHQW DQG &RQWURO *URXSV RQ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV :$,65 9RFDEXODU\ 6FRUH DQG 7LPH 3RVW ,QMXU\ 73,f 9DULDEOH *URXS $JH (GXFDWLRQ 9RFDEXODU\ 73,
PAGE 67

7DEOH 'HPRJUDSKLF DQG /HVLRQ /RFDWLRQO 'DWD IRU ,QGLYLGXDO 6WURNH 3DWLHQWV /HIW +HPLVSKHUH 'LVHDVH 3DWLHQWV 3DWLHQW $JH (G 6H[ 73, ) 3 7 /, ) f§ f§ / 0 R R R R / 0 / 0 R R R R / 0 f§ f§ / 0 f§ f§ f§ / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5LJKW 0 +HPLVSKHUH 'LVHDVH 3DWLHQWV 3DWLHQW $JH (G 6H[ 73, ) 3 7 5 0 f§ B 5 0 5 0 R R R R 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 R R R R 5 0 5,2 0 1RWH 73, WLPH SRVW LQM XU\ ) IURQWDO S SDULHWDO WHPSRUDO RFFLSLWDO /HVLRQ ORFDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH PDMRU EUDLQ VWUXFWXUHV LQYROYHG LQ WKH VWURNH 6L]H RI OHVLRQ LV QRW LPSOLHG E\ WKH QXPEHU RI VWUXFWXUHV LQYROYHG nn PHDQV WKDW VWUXFWXUH FRQWDLQV SDUW RI WKH OHVLRQ nRn PHDQV WKH OHVLRQ KDV QRW EHHQ ORFDOL]HG EH\RQG WKH KHPLVSKHUH OHYHOf VWURNH SDWLHQWV $OO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH ERUQ DQG UDLVHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZKLFK LQVXUHG D UHODWLYHO\ FLUFXPVFULEHG FXOWXUDO EDVH

PAGE 68

*URXS &RPSDULVRQV ,QGLYLGXDO RQHZD\ $129$nV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR HYDOXDWH JURXS HIIHFWV IRU DJH HGXFDWLRQ :$,65 9RFDEXODU\ VFDOHG VFRUH DQG 73, $ VLJQLILFDQW *URXS HIIHFW ZDV IRXQG IRU DJH ) >@ S f ZLWK WKH 5\DQ(LQRW*DEULHO:HOVK 0XOWLSOH ) SRVW KRF WHVW 5(*:) 5\DQ (LQRW t *DEULHO :HOVFK f LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH @ S f ZLWK WKH 5(*:) LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH WZR FRQWURO JURXSV ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP HDFK RWKHU DQG WKDW WKH @ S f ZDV DOVR IRXQG IRU :$,65 ([FHSW ZKHUH LQGLFDWHG /)nV VFRUHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR WKH PHDQV RI WKH
PAGE 69

9RFDEXODU\ VFDOHG VFRUHV 7KH 5(*:) LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WZR FRQWURO JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU WKH 2OGHU FRQWURO JURXS DQG WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV GLG QRW GLIIHU DQG WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU $JDLQ /) GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP KLV FRQWURO JURXS )LQDOO\ WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ PRQWKV VLQFH LQMXU\ W S f 1RU ZDV /)nV 73, VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH VWURNH SDWLHQWV 7R VXPPDUL]H WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VHW RI DQDO\VHV WKH
PAGE 70

7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ6KRUW )RUP 7KH 7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ6KRUW )RUP /HYLQ +DPVKHU t %HQWRQ f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f DQG FRQVLVWV RI WZHQW\ YHUWLFDOO\ DUUDQJHG SDLUV RI IHPDOH IDFHV ZLWK QHXWUDO H[SUHVVLRQV DQG ZKRVH KDLU LV FRYHUHG ZLWK D VXUJLFDO FDS +DOI RI WKH SDLUV FRQVLVW RI LGHQWLFDO SKRWRJUDSKV RI WKH VDPH SHUVRQ DQG KDOI FRQVLVW RI SKRWRJUDSKV RI WZR GLIIHUHQW SHUVRQV 7KH VXEMHFWnV WDVN LV WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH SKRWRJUDSKV DUH RI WKH VDPH RU GLIIHUHQW SHUVRQV 7HVWV RI 'LUHFW $FFHVV WR )DFH ,QIRUPDWLRQ )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW 7KH )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW ))$7f LV SDUW RI WKH )ORULGD $IIHFW %DWWHU\5HYLVHG %ORQGHU %RZHUV t +HLOPDQ f ZKLFK ZDV GHVLJQHG WR

PAGE 71

DVVHVV UHFHSWLYH SURFHVVLQJ RI HPRWLRQDO IDFHV DQG SURVRG\ DQG FRQVLVWV RI WKUHH SDUWV 3DUW WKH )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW LV FRPSULVHG RI ILYH IDFH SHUFHSWLRQ VXEWHVWV 6XEWHVW ZDV GHVFULEHG DERYH 6XEWHVW )DFLDO $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQf PHDVXUHV WKH SDWLHQWnV DELOLW\ WR GLVFULPLQDWH HPRWLRQDO IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV DFURVV GLIIHUHQW SHUVRQV 7ZHQW\ SDLUV RI YHUWLFDOO\ DUUDQJHG IDFHV DUH SUHVHQWHG 7KH WZR IDFHV LQ HDFK SDLU DUH QHYHU WKH VDPH SHUVRQ EXW IRU KDOI WKH SDLUV WKH WZR SHRSOH KDYH WKH VDPH H[SUHVVLRQ DQG IRU KDOI WKH\ KDYH GLIIHUHQW H[SUHVVLRQV 7KH VXEMHFWnV WDVN LV WR LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV DUH WKH VDPH RU GLIIHUHQW ,Q 6XEWHVW )DFLDO $IIHFW 1DPLQJf WZHQW\ LQGLYLGXDO IDFHV ZLWK KDSS\ VDG DQJU\ IULJKWHQHG RU QHXWUDO H[SUHVVLRQV DUH SUHVHQW WR WKH SDWLHQW ZKR PXVW WKHQ QDPH WKH HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ RQ WKH IDFH ,Q 6XEWHVW )DFLDO $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQf WKH SDWLHQW PXVW VHOHFW IURP D VHW RI ILYH IDFHV WKH RQH IDFH EHDULQJ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ QDPHG E\ WKH H[DPLQHU )LQDOO\ LQ 6XEWHVW )DFLDO $IIHFW 0DWFKLQJf WKH SDWLHQW PXVW VHOHFW WKH IDFH DPRQJ D VHW RI ILYH ZKLFK EHDUV WKH VDPH H[SUHVVLRQ DV D VWLPXOXV IDFH 6WHUHRW\SH DQG ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ 7HVWV 7KUHH UDWLQJ WHVWV ZHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVLJQHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ WR PHDVXUH GLUHFW DFFHVV WR RFFXSDWLRQDO DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH DQG IDFH LGHQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH 2FFXSDWLRQDO DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH UDWLQJ WHVWV HDFK FRQVLVWHG RI IDFHV SUHVHQWHG WZLFH RQFH HDFK ZLWK LWV FRUUHFW FDWHJRU\ DQG LQFRUUHFW

PAGE 72

FDWHJRU\ 7KH FRUUHFW FDWHJRU\ ZDV WKH RQH LQWR ZKLFK LW ZDV SODFHG PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ E\ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW VDPSOH RI VXEMHFWV ZKLOH WKH LQFRUUHFW FDWHJRU\ ZDV WKH RQH LQWR ZKLFK LW ZDV SODFHG OHDVW IUHTXHQWO\ VHH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU GHWDLOVf 7KH WHVW RI IDFH LGHQWLW\ FRQWDLQHG IDPRXV IDFHV SUHVHQWHG WZLFH RQFH ZLWK LWV FRUUHFW QDPH DQG RQFH ZLWK WKH QDPH RI DQRWKHU SHUVRQ IDPRXV DW DERXW WKH VDPH WLPH EXW IURP D GLIIHUHQW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ,Q DOO WHVWV KDOI RI WKH IDFHV ZHUH SDLUHG ILUVW ZLWK WKH FRUUHFW ODEHO DQG KDOI ZLWK WKH LQFRUUHFW ODEHO 7KH VXEMHFWnV WDVN ZDV WR UDWH KRZ ZHOO HDFK IDFH DQG LWV DVVRFLDWHG ODEHO RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRU RU QDPH GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH WHVWf PDWFKHG XVLQJ D SRLQW /LNHUW VFDOH 6SHFLILFDOO\ LQ WKH 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ WHVW WKH VXEMHFWV UDWHG KRZ PXFK WKH\ WKRXJKW WKH SHUVRQ VKRZQ ORRNHG OLNH KH EHORQJHG WR WKH DVVRFLDWHG RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ YHU\ PXFK QR YHU\ PXFK \HVf ,Q WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ WHVW WKH VXEMHFWV UDWHG KRZ PXFK WKH\ WKRXJKW WKH SHUVRQ VKRZQ ZRXOG EH GHVFULEHG XVLQJ WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRU SUHVHQWHG DJDLQ YHU\ PXFK QR YHU\ PXFK \HVf )LQDOO\ RQ WKH ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ WHVW WKH VXEMHFWV LQGLFDWHG KRZ FRQILGHQW WKH\ ZHUH WKDW WKH IDFH DQG QDPH ZHQW WRJHWKHU YHU\ FRQILGHQW QR YHU\ FRQILGHQW \HVf 7KXV LI D VXEMHFW ZDV SHUIHFWO\ DFFXUDWH KHVKH ZRXOG SURGXFH D PHDQ RI IRU WKH FRUUHFW IDFHODEHO SDLULQJ DQG D PHDQ RI IRU WKH LQFRUUHFW IDFHODEHO SDLULQJV 7KH

PAGE 73

PDJQLWXGH RI WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR PHDQV WKXV LQGLFDWHG KRZ ZHOO WKH\ ZHUH DEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ FRUUHFW DQG LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV 7HVWV RI ,QGLUHFW $FFHVV WR )DFH ,QIRUPDWLRQ 7KH WHVWV RI LQGLUHFW DFFHVV WR IDFH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQVLVWHG RI IRXU LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVNV
PAGE 74

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f IRXUILHOG WDFKLVWRVFRSH ZLWK D *HUEUDQGV $XWRPDWLF &DUG &KDQJHU DQG UHDFWLRQ WLPH ZDV PHDVXUHG ZLWK D YRLFH DFWLYDWHG PLOOLVHFRQG WLPHU $ WULDO FRQVLVWHG RI D PV SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH IL[DWLRQ GRW IROORZHG E\ D IDFH RU EODQN IRU PV DIWHU ZKLFK WKH ODEHO RU QDPHf ZDV SUHVHQWHG IRU PV )RU WKH 2FFXSDWLRQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG ,GHQWLW\ WDVNV WKH VXEMHFW ZRXOG \HV RU QR EDVHG XSRQ FULWHULD GHVFULEHG EHORZf XSRQ WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH ZRUG )RU WKH ([SUHVVLRQ WDVN WKH ZRUG ZDV VLPSO\ UHDG DV TXLFNO\ DV SRVVLEOH 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DOZD\V LQVWUXFWHG WR IRFXV RQ WKH ZRUG LJQRULQJ WKH IDFLDO VWLPXOL LQFOXGLQJ WKH EODQNVf 'HFLVLRQV ZHUH EDVHG RQ WKH IROORZLQJ FULWHULD )RU WKH )DFH2FFXSDWLRQ &DWHJRU\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH WDVN VXEMHFWV

PAGE 75

ZHUH WR VD\ \HV LI WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ZDV DQ DWKOHWLF MRE TXDUWHUEDFN VKRUWVWRSf DQG QR IRU DQ\ RWKHU RFFXSDWLRQ DFFRXQWDQW GRFWRU ODERUHU WUXFN GULYHUf )RU WKH )DFH3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HVFULSWRU WDVN WKH\ VDLG \HV LI WKH L ZRUG GHVFULEHG D EDG JX\ DJJUHVVLYH LQWROHUDQWf DQG QR LI LW GHVFULEHG DQ\RQH HOVH NLQG VRFLDEOH VK\f ,Q WKH ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ,QWHUIHUHQFH WDVN VXEMHFWV VLPSO\ UHDG WKH HPRWLRQ ODEHO DV LW DSSHDUHG UDWKHU WKDQ PDNLQJ D GHFLVLRQ DERXW LW DV LQ WKH RWKHU WHVWVf )LQDOO\ LQ WKH )DFH ,GHQWLW\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH WDVN WKH\ UHVSRQGHG \HV ZKHQ WKH QDPH SUHVHQWHG ZDV WKDW RI D SROLWLFLDQ *HQHUDO 3URFHGXUH 6XEMHFWV HQWHUHG WKH ODERUDWRU\ DQG FRPSOHWHG WKH LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW IRUP 7KH\ ZHUH JLYHQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG DOORZHG WR UHYLHZ WKH ZRUGV IRU HDFK LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVN LPPHGLDWHO\ SULRU WR WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI HDFK )ROORZLQJ WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVNV WKH 9RFDEXODU\ VXEWHVW IURP WKH :HFKVOHU $GXOW ,QWHOOLJHQFH 6FDOH5HYLVHG :$,65 :HFKVOHU f ZDV FRPSOHWHG 7KH IDFH PHPRU\ DQG SHUFHSWLRQ WHVWV DQG WKH WHVWV RI GLUHFW DFFHVV WR IDFH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG ODVW 7KH IROORZLQJ LV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH RUGHU RI WHVW DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ f )DFH 2FFXSDWLRQ &DWHJRU\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH f )DFH3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HVFULSWRU ,QWHUIHUHQFH f ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ,QWHUIHUHQFH f )DFH,GHQWLW\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH f :$,65 9RFDEXODU\ f 0LOQHU )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7HVW f %HQWRQ 7HVW RI )DFLDO

PAGE 76

5HFRJQLWLRQ f 2FFXSDWLRQ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ f 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ f )DFH ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ DQG f )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW )ROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI DOO WHVWV WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH GHEULHIHG $OO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV DQG VWURNH SDWLHQWV ZHUH WHVWHG RQFH /) ZDV WHVWHG IRXU WLPHV WR HQVXUH D PRUH UHOLDEOH HYDOXDWLRQ 5HVXOWV 7HVWV RI )DFH 0HPRU\ DQG 3HUFHSWLRQ 7KH VFRUHV IRU WKH 0LOQHU )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7HVW 0LOQHU QXPEHU RI FRUUHFW UHFRJQLWLRQV RXW RI f %HQWRQ 7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ %HQWRQ PHDQ FRUUHFWHG ORQJ IRUP VFRUHf DQG WKH ))$7 ,GHQWLW\ 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ 6XEWHVW SHUFHQW FRUUHFWf ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ VHSDUDWH RQHZD\ *URXSf $129$V $ VLJQLILFDQW JURXS HIIHFW ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH 0LOQHU VFRUH ) >@ S f ZLWK WKH 5(*:) LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV GLG QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHU QRU ZHUH WKHUH GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WZR FRQWURO JURXSV DQG WKH /+' JURXS +RZHYHU WKH 5+' JURXS SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH WKDQ WKH WZR FRQWURO JURXSV /)n V SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 0LOQHU ZDV LQ WKH LPSDLUHG UDQJH DFFRUGLQJ WR 0LOQHUnV f f f $OO GHVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV DQG DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$f ZHUH FRPSXWHG XVLQJ 6$6 9HUVLRQ 6$6 ,QVWLWXWH ,QFf RQ D &RPSDF SHUVRQDO FRPSXWHU 6FRUHV UHSUHVHQWHG DV SURSRUWLRQV %HQWRQ 0LOQHU DQG DOO ))$7 VFRUHVf ZHUH WUDQVIRUPHG XVLQJ WKH DUFVLQ VTXDUHURRW WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ WR VWDELOL]H WKH YDULDQFH 1HWHU :DVVHUPDQ t .XWQHU f $OO UHDFWLRQ WLPHV ZHUH ORJ WUDQVIRUPHG WR UHGXFH VNHZQHVV 1HWHU :DVVHUPDQ t .XWQHU f $OO WUDQVIRUPHG YDULDEOHV ZHUH UHFRQYHUWHG WR WKH RULJLQDO XQLWV IRU SUHVHQWDWLRQ SXUSRVHV

PAGE 77

VXJJHVWHG FXWRIIV 0LOQHU f )RU WKH %HQWRQ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH DOVR IRXQG ) f S 7KH 5(*:) LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH WKDQ DOO RWKHU JURXSV DQG WKDW WKH /+' SDWLHQWV SHUIRUPHG ZRUVH WKDQ WKH @ S f WKDQ WKH RWKHU WKUHH JURXSV DQG /) ZKR ZDV b FRUUHFWf GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP WKH FRQWUROV RU WKH /+' JURXS 7KXV WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR WKH /+' DQG 1+' VXEMHFWV RQ DOO WKUHH WHVWV ZKLOH WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF ZDV RQO\ LPSDLUHG RQ WKH WHVW RI IDFH PHPRU\ &OHDUO\ EDVLF IDFH SHUFHSWLRQ LV D SUREOHP IRU WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV 6HH 7DEOH IRU GHWDLOV 7DEOH 0HDQV IRU WKH 7HVWV RI )DFH 0HPRU\ DQG 3HUFHSWLRQ *URXS 0LOQHU
PAGE 78

7HVWV RI 'LUHFW $FFHVV WR )DFH ,QIRUPDWLRQ )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW 7KH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH ))$7 VXEWHVWV $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ 1DPLQJ 6HOHFWLRQ DQG 0DWFKLQJf DGGUHVV DIIHFWLYH SURFHVVLQJ DQG ZHUH VXEPLWWHG WR D *URXSf [ 6XEWHVWf PL[HGEORFN $129$ ZKLFK UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW *URXS E\ 6XEWHVW LQWHUDFWLRQ ) >@ S )ROORZXS $129$V DQG 5(*:)V HYDOXDWLQJ JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV RQ HDFK VXEWHVW LQGLFDWHG WKDW IRU $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG $IIHFW 1DPLQJ WKH &RQWURO JURXSV SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ EHWWHU WKDQ WKH VWURNH JURXSV ) >@ S DQG ) >@ S UHVSHFWLYHO\f )RU ERWK WHVWV /) GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP KLV FRQWURO JURXS )RU $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ WKH 5+' JURXS SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH WKDQ WKH /+' JURXS DQG IURP FRQWUROV ) f S DQG /) SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH WKDQ WKH @ S f )RU WKH 2OGHU FRQWURO JURXS RQO\ $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ

PAGE 79

DQG $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ EHLQJ KLJKHU ) >@ S f )RU WKH /+' SDWLHQWV $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH RWKHU VXEWHVWV ) >@ S f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
PAGE 80

DQG $IIHFW 0DWFKLQJ 7KXV RQ GLUHFW WHVWV RI H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF ZDV UHODWLYHO\ XQLPSDLUHG ZKLOH WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH UHODWLYHO\ LPSDLUHG )LJXUH SUHVHQWV WKHVH ILQGLQJV JUDSKLFDOO\ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ 7HVW 7KH PHDQ UDWLQJ IRU FRUUHFW SDLULQJV DQG WKH PHDQ UDWLQJ IRU LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV ZHUH VXEPLWWHG WR D *URXSf [ &RQGLWLRQf PL[HGEORFN $129$ IRU HDFK WHVW 6HH 7DEOH IRU RYHUDOO UHVXOWV RI WKLV DQDO\VLV DQG )LJXUH IRU JUDSKLFDO SUHVHQWDWLRQf )RU WKH 2FFXSDWLRQ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ WHVW WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV RI *URXS ) >@ S f DQG &RQGLWLRQ ) >@ S f EXW WKH *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW ) >@ S f 3RVW KRF WHVWLQJ LQGLFDWHG WKDW DV H[SHFWHG WKH &RUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV \LHOGHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ODUJHU YDOXHV WKDQ WKH ,QFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ DFURVV JURXSV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH WKH FRUUHFW IURP LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH RYHUDOO UDWLQJV IRU WKH
PAGE 81

6XEMHFW *URXS f§f§
PAGE 82

7DEOH 6LPOH (IIHFW DQG *UDQG 0HDQ 5DWLQDV IRU WKH 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQD 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ *URXS *URXS &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW *UDQG 0HD @ S f EXW WKH &RQGLWLRQ PDLQ HIIHFW ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) >@ S f WKH *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH ) >@ S f $JDLQ SRVW KRF WHVWLQJ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH &RUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\

PAGE 83

)LJXUH 0HDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH &RUUHFW DQG ,QFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH 'LUHFW 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH WHVW KLJKHU WKDQ WKH ,QFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ VHH 7DEOH DQG )LJXUH f /)nV VFRUHV &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW f IHOO ZLWKLQ WKH DSSURSULDWH b &OnV IRU WKH @ S f (YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ 0HDQ 5DWLQJ
PAGE 84

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI W7HVWV &RPSDULQJ /)nV 5DWLQJV LQ WKH &RUUHFW 9HUVXV ,QFRUUHFW &RQGLWLRQV IRU (DFK RI WKH 5DWLQJ 7HVWV 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW ( PHDQ VG PHDQ VG f f f f f f f f 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQJ 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW PHDQ VG PHDQ VG W ( f f f f f f f f ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQD 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW PHDQ VG PHDQ VG W ( f f f f f f f f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH FRUUHFW DQG LQFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQV ZLWKLQ DOO WKH JURXSV @ S 2OGHU ) >@ S /+' ) >@ S 5+' ) >@ S f :LWKLQ WKH &RUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ WKH WZR

PAGE 85

7DEOH 6LPOH (IIHFW DQG *UDQG 0HDQ 5DWLQDV IRU WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5DWLQFM 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ *URXS *URXS &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW *UDQG 0HDQ @ S f EXW GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP WKH /+' SDWLHQWV QRU GLG WKH /+' SDWLHQWV GLIIHU IURP WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV :LWKLQ WKH ,QFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH UHPDLQLQJ JURXSV ) >@ S f ZKLFK GLG QRW GLIIHU 7KHVH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW ZKLOH WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH DEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH FRUUHFW IURP LQFRUUHFW IDFH QDPH SDLULQJV WKH\ GLG QRW GR VR DV ZHOO DV WKH RWKHU VXEMHFWV

PAGE 86

0HDQ 5DWLQJ
PAGE 87

GLIILFXOW\ UHFRJQL]LQJ IDPRXV IDFHV WKH\ FRXOG GR VR IDU PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ WKDQ WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF &RPSDULVRQ RI 5DWLQJV 7HVW 'LIIHUHQFH 6FRUHV :KHQ GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV LH WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHDQ UDWLQJ IRU WKH &RUUHFW FRQGLWLRQ DQG PHDQ UDWLQJ IRU WKH ,QFRUUHFW FRQGLWLRQf IRU WKH WKUHH UDWLQJ WHVWV ZHUH DQDO\]HG WRJHWKHU LQ D *URXSf [ 7HVWf $129$ VLJQLILFDQW *URXS ) >@ 7DEOH 6LPSOH (IIHFW DQG *UDQG 0HDQ 5DWLQJV IRU WKH ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ *URXS &RUUHFW ,QFRUUHFW *URXS *UDQG 0HDQ
PAGE 88

0HDQ 5DWLQJ @ S f PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG ZLWKRXW D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ ) >@ S f 7KH 5(*:)V LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 5+' JURXS ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH DW GLVFULPLQDWLQJ FRUUHFW YHUVXV LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV DFURVV DOO WHVWV DQG WKDW DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH EHWWHU DW GLVFULPLQDWLQJ FRUUHFW YHUVXV LQFRUUHFW IDFHQDPH SDLULQJV RQ WKH )DFH ,GHQWLW\ WHVW WKDQ RQ WKH 2FFXSDWLRQ DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ WHVWV /) ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ LPSDLUHG FRPSDUHG WR KLV FRQWURO JURXS RQ ERWK WKH 2FFXSDWLRQ /)nV VFRUH b &O WR f DQG ,GHQWLW\ 5DWLQJ WHVWV /)nV VFRUH b &O WR f +LV GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH RQ WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 5DWLQJ

PAGE 89

7HVW f IHOO ZLWKLQ WKH b &O IRU WKH
PAGE 90

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f E\ &RQGLWLRQf PL[HGEORFN $129$ )RU WKLV WHVW QHLWKHU WKH &RQGLWLRQ PDLQ HIIHFW ) >@ S f QRU WKH *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ) >@ S f ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 2QO\ WKH *URXS PDLQ HIIHFW UHDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH ) >@ S f 7KH SRVW KRF WHVW LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV KDG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORQJHU RYHUDOO 57V WKDQ GLG WKH FRQWURO JURXSV /)nV VFRUHV IHOO ZHOO ZLWKLQ WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH b &OnV EXW WKHUH ZDV QRW D VLJQLILFDQW FRQGLWLRQ HIIHFW IRU WKH
PAGE 91

7DEOH 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH LQ PLOOLVHFRQGVf 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU )DFH2FFXSDWLRQ &DWHJRU\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW &RQ &RQJUXHQW ,QFRQ ,QFRQJUXHQWH &RQGLWLRQ *URXS *URXS &RQWURO &RQ ,QFRQ 0DLQ (IIHFW @ 3 f f DQG &RQGLWLRQ ) >@ S f PDLQ HIIHFWV DQG *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ) >@ S f ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH SURYLGHV PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV DQG )LJXUH SUHVHQWV WKH GDWD JUDSKLFDOO\ %HFDXVH WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW IROORZXSV RQ WKH PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH QRW FDOFXODWHG )ROORZXS $129$V DQG 5(*:)V ZHUH FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK *URXS DQG &RQGLWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH VRXUFH RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ :LWKLQ HDFK JURXS

PAGE 92

7DEOH 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH LQ PLOOLVHFRQGVf 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU )DFH3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HVFULSWRU ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW &RQ &RQJUXHQW ,QFRQ ,QFRQJUXHQWH *URXS &RQWURO &RQ ,QFRQ *URXS 0DLQ (IIHFW @ S 2OGHU ) >@ S /+' ) >@ S 5+' ) >@ S f 7KH SRVW KRF 5(*:)V LQGLFDWHG WKDW IRU WKH
PAGE 93

5HDFWLRQ 7LPH PVf @ &RQJUXHQW ) >@ ,QFRQJUXHQW ) >@ f )RU DOO FRQGLWLRQV WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV ZHUH

PAGE 94

VLJQLILFDQWO\ VORZHU WKDQ WKH FRQWURO JURXSV %HFDXVH WKH SURVRSDJQRVLFV 57V ZHUH H[SHFWHGO\ PXFK VORZHU WKDQ WKRVH RI WKH @ f DQG &RQGLWLRQ ) >@ f PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DW DOSKD WKH *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW ) >@ S f 7DEOH VKRZV PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU WKLV WHVW DQG )LJXUH VKRZV WKH GDWD JUDSKLFDOO\ 3RVW KRF WHVWLQJ LQGLFDWHG DJDLQ WKDW WKH VWURNH SDWLHQWV KDG VORZHU RYHUDOO 57V WKDQ GLG WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV ZKLOH WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ VORZHU WKDQ WKH &RQJUXHQW DQG &RQWURO FRQGLWLRQV ZKLFK GLG QRW GLIIHUf :KLOH WKH DERYH UHVXOWV VHHP WR VXJJHVW WKDW WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV SHUIRUPHG QRUPDOO\ LH WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW

PAGE 95

7DEOH 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH LQ PLOOLVHFRQGVf 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW &RQ &RQJUXHQW ,QFRQ ,QFRQJUXHQWf &RQGLWLRQ *URXS &RQWURO &RQ ,QFRQ *URXS 0DLQ (IIHFW @ S f DQG DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKH /+' SDWLHQWV ) >@ S f +RZHYHU WKH )WHVW ZDV QRW HYHQ FORVH IRU WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ) >@ S f ,Q IDFW H[DPLQDWLRQ

PAGE 96

5HDFWLRQ 7LPH PVf
PAGE 97

>@ S &RQGLWLRQ ) >@ S *URXS E\ &RQGLWLRQ ) >@ S f )ROORZXS $129$V LQGLFDWHG WKDW DOO JURXSV VKRZHG D VLJQLILFDQW &RQGLWLRQ HIIHFW @ S 2OGHU ) >@ S /+' ) >@ S 5+' ) >@ S f 7KH RUGHULQJ RI &RQGLWLRQV ZDV LGHQWLFDO IRU DOO JURXSV ZLWK WKH &RQJUXHQW EHLQJ IDVWHVW DQG ,QFRQJUXHQW VORZHVW DQG &RQWURO LQ EHWZHHQ VHH 7DEOH DQG )LJXUH f +RZHYHU IRU 7DEOH 5HDFWLRQ 7LPH ILQ PLOOLVHFRQGVf 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU )DFH,GHQWLW\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVW >&RQ &RQJUXHQW ,QFRQ ,QFRQJUXHQWH &RQGLWLRQ *URXS *URXS &RQWURO &RQ ,QFRQ 0DLQ (IIHFW
PAGE 98

5HDFWLRQ 7LPH PVf @ &RQJUXHQW ) >@ ,QFRQJUXHQW ) >@ f DW DOSKD /)nV VFRUHV ZHUH RUGHUHG SURSHUO\ LH &RQJUXHQW IDVWHU WKDQ ,QFRQJUXHQWf DQG KRZHYHU WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH HIIHFW ZDV VPDOO FRPSDUHG WR WKH
PAGE 99

IDFHQDPH LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVNV 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVV 'H+DDQ HW DO f 7KXV LW VHHPV WKDW WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF DORQH IDLOHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH D QRUPDO LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKLV WDVN GHVSLWH KDYLQJ GHPRQVWUDWHG LPSOLFLW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFLDO LGHQWLW\ LQ VHYHUDO RWKHU VWXGLHV %DXHU *UHYH t %DXHU 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVVf ,VVXHV UHODWHG WR KLV DSSDUHQW IDLOXUH RQ WKLV WDVN DQG WKH H[SUHVVLRQ LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVN ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ RI ,QGLUHFW 7DVN 5HVXOWV ,Q VXPPDU\ DOO JURXSV IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH 2FFXSDWLRQ WDVN ZKLOH VWURQJ HIIHFWV ZHUH REVHUYHG IRU DOO JURXSV RQ WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ WDVN 7KH SURVRSDJQRVLF IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH ,GHQWLW\ WDVN ZKLOH WKH RWKHU JURXSV SHUIRUPHG QRUPDO 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKDW RI 'H+DDQ HW DOV LQ SUHVVf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

PAGE 100

LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH HPRWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFW LQ WKHVH SDWLHQWV +RZHYHU DV 6KDOOLFH f ZDUQV DVVRFLDWLRQV RI GHILFLWV LQ JURXSV PD\ QRW UHSUHVHQW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VXEMHFWV ZLWKLQ WKH JURXS HJ LI KDOI WKH JURXS LV KLJK RQ YDULDEOH DQG ORZ RQ WKH RWKHU ZKLOH WKH RWKHU KDOI KDV WKH UHYHUVH SDWWHUQ WKH JURXS ZLOO EH GRZQ RQ ERWK YDULDEOHV ZLWKRXW DQ\ RQH VXEMHFW EHLQJ GRZQ RQ ERWKf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f WKHQ SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV FRQVLGHUHG LPSDLUHG 8VLQJ WKLV FULWHULD WKHUH LV VRPH ULVN WKDW VPDOO GLIIHUHQFH PD\ UHIOHFW FKDQFH YDULDWLRQ KRZHYHU ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKUHH SDWLHQWV WZR /+' RQH 5+'f DOO VXEMHFWV KDG GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV ODUJHU WKDQ PV ZKLFK DOORZV IRU OLWWOH DPELJXLW\ VLQFH WKLV LV PXFK ODUJHU WKDQ WKH JURXS GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ FRQGLWLRQV 7KXV DOO EXW WKUHH SDWLHQWV HLWKHU FOHDUO\ VKRZHG D QRUPDO LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RU WKH\ GLG QRW 7DEOH VKRZV WKH SHUIRUPDQFHV RI DOO WKH

PAGE 101

VWURNH SDWLHQWV RQ DOO H[SUHVVLRQ WDVNV nn XQLPSDLUHG LPSDLUHGf DQG LQFOXGHV WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW&RQJUXHQW GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH IRU HDFK SDWLHQW 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFHV RQ HDFK GLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WHVW DQG WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN IRU WKH WZR VWURNH JURXSV 7DOH 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 6WURNH 3DWLHQWV RQ 'LUHFW DQG ,QGLUHFW ([SUHVVLRQ 7DVNV n n QRUPDO RU XQLPSDLUHG LPSDLUHGf /HIW +HPLVSKHUH 'LVHDVH 3DWLHQWV 3W 'LVFULP ))$7 6XEWHVWV 1DPLQJ 6HOHFW 0DWFK ([SUHVVLRQ ,QWHUIHUH /DEHO 57 'LII /, / / / / f§ / B / / / / 5LJKW +HPLVSKHUH 'LVHDVH 3DWLHQWV 3W 'LVFULP ))$7 6XEWHVWV 1DPLQJ 6HOHFW 0DWFK ([SUHVVLRQ ,QWHUIHUH /DEHO 57 'LII 5 B 5 5 5 5 f§ f§ f§ f§ f§ 5 f§ f§ 5 5 5 5,2

PAGE 102

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f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

PAGE 103

7DEOH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WURNH 3DWLHQW 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ (DFK ))$7 6XEWHVW ZLWK 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7DVN /+' 3DWLHQWV 5+' 3DWLHQWV ))$7 6XEWHVW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO 1DPLQJ 6HOHFWLRQ 0DWFKLQJ

PAGE 104

FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV DUH RQ WKH ZKROH PRUH LPSDLUHG RQ GLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ WKDQ WKH /+' SDWLHQWV *LYHQ WKH JHQHUDO IDLOXUH RI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV RQ WKH GLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVNV KRZ GLG WKRVH ZKR IDLOHG GLUHFW WDVNV SHUIRUP RQ WKH LQGLUHFW WDVN" 5HVXOWV VKRZ WKDW KDOI WKH SDWLHQWV ZLWK GLUHFW WHVW IDLOXUHV VKRZHG D QRUPDO LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW ZKLOH WKH RWKHU KDOI GLG QRW 2I WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR VKRZHG D QRUPDO LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQH SDVVHG WZR VXEWHVWV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ VHOHFWLRQf WZR SDVVHG RQH VXEWHVW RQH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RQH QDPLQJf DQG RQH SDVVHG QR VXEWHVWV :KDW WKLV PHDQV LV WKDW KDOI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZLWK LPSDLUPHQW RQ GLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVNV VKRZHG LQGLUHFW DFFHVV WR WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV ZHUH FOHDUO\ LQWDFW LQ VRPH 5+' SDWLHQWV 7KLV LV LQ PDUNHG FRQWUDVW WR WKH JURXS UHVXOWV ZKLFK LPSO\ WKDW DOO WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW

PAGE 105

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

PAGE 106

)LJXUH 0RGHO RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ K\SRWKHVL]HG LQ &KDSWHU

PAGE 107

PRGHO VXJJHVWV WKDW RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ LV EDVHG SULPDULO\ RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ GHULYHG IURP WKH LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ SURFHVV ,W DOVR VXJJHVWV WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVHG ZLWKLQ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV V\VWHP LV WKH SULPDU\ EDVLV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ,I WKLV PRGHO LV DFFXUDWH SHRSOH ZLWK DQ H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFW HJ 5+'f VKRXOG DOVR EH UHODWLYHO\ LPSDLUHG LQ FDWHJRUL]LQJ IDFHV LQ WHUPV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ ZKLOH UHPDLQLQJ XQLPSDLUHG RQ WHVWV RI LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH MXGJPHQW ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF ZKR LV XQDEOH WR UHFRJQL]H LGHQWLW\ VKRXOG VKRZ WKH RSSRVLWH HIIHFW :KDW LQIHUHQFHV FDQ EH GUDZQ IURP WKH REVHUYHG GDWD" 6HH 7DEOH IRU D VXPPDU\ RI WKH UHVXOWVf $OO VXEMHFWV H[FHSW WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF SHUIRUPHG QRUPDOO\ RQ WKH GLUHFW ,GHQWLW\ WDVN 6LPLODUO\ WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG DV D JURXSf KDG PRUH GLIILFXOW\ RQ WKH ([SUHVVLRQ WDVNV WKDQ GLG /) RXU SURVRSDJQRVLF RU WKH /+' SDWLHQWV 7KLV ILQGLQJ UHSUHVHQWV D FODVVLFDO GRXEOH GLVVRFLDWLRQ 6KDOOLFH f EHWZHHQ LGHQWLW\ DQG H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DELOLWLHV LQ WKDW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV RQ WKH LGHQWLW\ WDVN ZDV LQ WKH QRUPDO UDQJH ZKLOH WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ))$7 VXEWHVWV ZDV JHQHUDOO\ LPSDLUHG 1RUPDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH GLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WHVW ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LPSDLUHG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ E\ WKUHH SDWLHQWV $IIHFW 1DPLQJ E\ ILYH SDWLHQWV $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ E\ IRXU SDWLHQWV DQG

PAGE 108

$IIHFW 0DWFKLQJ E\ VL[ SDWLHQWV 7KH UHYHUVH ZDV VHHQ IRU WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF IRU DOO IRXU WHVWLQJ VHVVLRQV WKRXJK KH ZDV LPSDLUHG RQ WKH ILUVW DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI $IIHFW 1DPLQJf 7KDW RQO\ WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF ZDV LPSDLUHG RQ WKH GLUHFW 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH WDVN LV DOVR FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKLV PRGHO DOWKRXJK WKH PRGHO GRHV QRW SURYLGH WKH RQO\ SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQf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

PAGE 109

$ VLPLODU SDWWHUQ RI SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV VHHQ RQ WKH LQGLUHFW WDVNV $JDLQ RQO\ WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV VXUSULVLQJ LQ OLJKW RI WKH IDFW WKDW KH VKRZHG QRUPDO LPSOLFLW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDPRXV IDFHV LQ WZR RWKHU VWXGLHV %DXHU 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVVf $GGLWLRQDOO\ ZKLOH XQLPSDLUHG RQ WKH ))$7 KH DOVR IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN 7KLV UDLVHV WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU KLV QRUPDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ))$7 LV WKH UHVXOW RI QRUPDO H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DQGRU ZKHWKHU SUREOHPV H[LVWHG ZLWK WKH LQGLUHFW WDVN LWVHOI 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV ZLOO EH DGGUHVVHG LQ D ODWHU VHFWLRQ 7KH QRUPDO SHUIRUPDQFH RI VRPH RI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV RQ WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN LQGLFDWHV WKDW LQ DW OHDVW D VXEVHW RI VXFK SDWLHQWV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV DUH LQWDFW EXW QRW FRQVFLRXVO\ DYDLODEOH +RZHYHU VRPH RI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZKR ZHUH LPSDLUHG RQ WKH ))$7 IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WHVW 7KLV REVHUYDWLRQ KDV LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH IXQFWLRQDO SDWKRORJ\ XQGHUO\LQJ WKHLU H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ GHILFLWV 7KH ILQGLQJ WKDW DOO JURXSV SHUIRUPHG QRUPDOO\ RQ WKH LQGLUHFW SHUVRQDOLW\ WDVN LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKHLU RYHUDOO QRUPDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH GLUHFW SHUVRQDOLW\ WHVW )LQDOO\ WKH ODFN RI DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH LQGLUHFW 2FFXSDWLRQ WDVN IRU DOO JURXSV SUREDEO\ UDLVHV PRUH TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH DGHTXDF\ RI WKDW SDUWLFXODU WDVN WKDQ DERXW WKH

PAGE 110

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nV DQG ,GHQWLW\VSHFLILF 6HPDQWLF &RGHVf DUH LQWDFW EXW FDQQRW EH FRQVFLRXVO\

PAGE 111

DFFHVVHG 'H+DDQ HW DO f 6LPLODU HYLGHQFH RI LQGLUHFW DFFHVV WR YDULRXV W\SHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ PHPRU\ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV VHH 6FKDFWHU IRU D UHYLHZ ZRUG PHDQLQJ 0LOEHUJ t %OXPVWHLQ %OXPVWHLQ 0LOEHUJ t 6KULHU f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nV VWXGLHV 'H+DDQ HW DO 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVVf ZLWK WZR GLIIHUHQW SURVRSDJQRVLFV WKLV H[SODQDWLRQ FDQQRW DFFRXQW IRU WKH REVHUYHG ILQGLQJV 7KHVH ILQGLQJV LQFOXGH WKH LPSDLUPHQW RI WKH D VXEVHW RI 5+' SDWLHQWV RQ ERWK GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVNV DQG WKH IDLOXUH RI /) RQ ERWK LGHQWLW\ WDVNV DQG WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN 7KHVH GDWD PD\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH UHOHYDQW PHPRU\ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ GLVUXSWHG EXW RWKHU IDFWRUV PXVW EH UXOHG RXW EHIRUH WKLV FRQFOXVLRQ LV YLDEOH

PAGE 112

,GHQWLW\ 3URFHVVLQJ ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKH IDLOXUH RI /) RQ WKH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN LV WKH UHVXOW RI DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VKRUWFRPLQJV RI WKH VSHFLILF WDVN DQG KLV YLVXDO SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFW UDWKHU WKDQ D ORVV RI WKH IDFH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV /) KDV FRQVLVWHQWO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG VSDUHG LPSOLFLW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDPLOLDU IDFHV XVLQJ ERWK DXWRQRPLF *XLOW\ .QRZOHGJH 7HVW >*.7@ %DXHU f DQG EHKDYLRUDO PHDVXUHV IDFHQDPH LQWHUIHUHQFH 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVVf WKXV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW KLV PHPRU\ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RI IDPLOLDU IDFHV DUH LQWDFW 7KH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN DORQH LV QRW LQDGHTXDWH VLQFH ERWK QRUPDO FRQWURO DQG VWURNH JURXSV SHUIRUPHG QRUPDOO\ RQ LW $GGLWLRQDOO\ /) GLG SHUIRUP QRUPDOO\ RQ WKLV W\SH RI SDUDGLJP VKRZLQJ D VWURQJ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH LQGLUHFW SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH WDVN 7KXV LW VHHPV WKDW /)nV IDLOXUH RQ WKLV WDVN UHIOHFWV DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH GHIHFW ZKLFK FDXVHV KLV GLUHFW LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ IDLOXUH DQG VRPH DVSHFW RI WKH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN LWVHOI &DUHIXO H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN VXJJHVWV WZR SRVVLEOH VKRUWFRPLQJV f LQVXIILFLHQW WLPH PD\ KDYH EHHQ DOORZHG IRU /) WR SURFHVV WKH IDFHV EHIRUH WKH WDUJHW QDPH DSSHDUHG 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVV DOORZHG IRU DQ PV LQWHUYDO EHWZHHQ IDFH DQG QDPHf RU f WKH IDFHV DQGRU QDPHV PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ FOHDU UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV ,QVXIILFLHQW

PAGE 113

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f VHFRQG H[SHULPHQW LI WKH IDFH RI 5LFKDUG 1L[RQ ZDV SDLUHG ZLWK 3DXO 1HZPDQnV QDPH LQ WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW &RQGLWLRQ WKHQ DQRWKHU LQFRQJUXHQW LWHP ZRXOG IHDWXUH 3DXO 1HZPDQnV IDFHV ZLWK 5LFKDUG 1L[RQnV QDPH 6WURQJ H[HPSODUV RI D SDUWLFXODU VHPDQWLF FODVV ZKR KDYH IHZ VWURQJ DVVRFLDWLRQV WR RWKHU VHPDQWLF FODVVHV DUH LPSRUWDQW VLQFH WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH SDUDGLJP VHHPV XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH LGHQWLW\ EH\RQG VHPDQWLF FODVV WR VSHFLILF QDPH 5HFDOO WKDW 'H+DDQ HW DO LQ SUHVVf SDLUHG D IDFH ZLWK LWV RZQ QDPH 6DPH FRQGLWLRQf D GLIIHUHQW QDPH IURP WKH VDPH VHPDQWLF FDWHJRU\ 5HODWHG FRQGLWLRQf DQG D QDPH IURP D GLIIHUHQW VHPDQWLF FDWHJRU\ 'LIIHUHQW FRQGLWLRQf 5HDFWLRQ WLPHV ZHUH XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ WKH 6DPH DQG 5HODWHG FRQGLWLRQV +RZHYHU WKH 6DPH DQG 5HODWHG FRQGLWLRQV DUH IDVWHU WKDQ 'LIIHUHQW FRQGLWLRQVf 7KXV LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH SUHVHQFH RI ZHDN H[HPSODUV RI WKH SROLWLFLDQ DQG QRQSROLWLFLDQ

PAGE 114

FDWHJRULHV PD\ KDYH LQWHUDFWHG ZLWK /)n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f ,Q

PAGE 115

IDFW RXU 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR WKH FRQWUROV DQG WKH /+' SDWLHQWV RQ WKH 0LOQHU )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7HVW WKH %HQWRQ 7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG WKH ,GHQWLW\ 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ VXEWHVW VXEWHVW f RI WKH ))$7 7KH\ DOVR ZHUH LPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR WKH /+' SDWLHQWV RQ 6XEWHVWV )DFLDO $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQf DQG )DFLDO $IIHFW 0DWFKLQJf RI WKH ))$7 DQG IDLOHG WR VKRZ DQ LQWHUIHUHQFH HIIHFW RQ WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN +RZHYHU IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO 5+' SDWLHQWV SHUFHSWXDO G\VIXQFWLRQ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ LPSDLUHG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ DW OHDVW WZR RI WKH WKUHH IDFH PHPRU\ DQG SHUFHSWLRQ WDVNV 0LOQHU %HQWRQ ))$7 ,GHQWLW\ 'LVFULPLQDWLRQf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

PAGE 116

FRUUHFW IURP LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV DQG SHUIRUPHG QRUPDOO\ RQ WZR RI WKH LQWHUIHUHQFH WDVNV 7KXV LW LV XQOLNHO\ WKDW YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO G\VIXQFWLRQ FDQ IXOO\ DFFRXQW IRU WKH H[SUHVVLRQ SURFHVVLQJ LPSDLUPHQW RI WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV )XUWKHU HYLGHQFH DUJXLQJ DJDLQVW H[SODLQLQJ WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH DIIHFWLYH SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFW LQ WHUPV RI YLVXRSHUFHSWXDO G\VIXQFWLRQ LV SURYLGHG LQ WZR VWXGLHV E\ %RZHUV DQG KHU FROOHDJXHV %ORQGHU HW DO %RZHUV %ORQGHU t +HLOPDQ LQ SUHVVf ,Q WKH ILUVW VWXG\ %ORQGHU HW DO f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW 5+' SDWLHQWV ZKR ZHUH LPSDLUHG RQ WDVNV RI HPRWLRQDO IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ DQG YHUEDO SURVRG\ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZHUH LPSDLUHG RQ WDVNV ZKLFK UHTXLUHG WKHP WR FRPSUHKHQG QRQYHUEDO H[SUHVVLRQ RI HPRWLRQ ZKHQ FRPPXQLFDWHG E\ YHUEDO GHVFULSWLRQV HJ +H VFRZOHG 6KH VPLOHG 7HDUV IHOO IURP KHU H\HVf ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV ZHUH XQLPSDLUHG UHODWLYH WR /+' SDWLHQWV RQ D WDVN UHTXLULQJ WKHP WR LQIHU HPRWLRQDO PHDQLQJ IURP VLWXDWLRQV OLQNHG WR VSHFLILF HPRWLRQV HJ DQG@ LV QRW UHIOHFWLYH RI 5+

PAGE 117

VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR LQWHUSUHW WKH HPRWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI HYHQWV %ORQGHU HW DO SS f ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWXG\ %RZHUV HW DO LQ SUHVVf 5+' DQG /+' SDWLHQWV DQG QRUPDO FRQWUROV FRPSOHWHG WZR YLVXDO LPDJHU\ WDVNV ,Q WKH ILUVW WDVN ,PDJHU\ IRU (PRWLRQDO )DFLDO ([SUHVVLRQVf WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LPDJLQH WKH\ ZHUH ORRNLQJ DW VRPHRQH GLVSOD\LQJ HDFK RI IRXU WDUJHW HPRWLRQV KDSS\ VDG DQJU\ IULJKWHQHGf 7KH\ ZHUH WKHQ DVNHG HLJKW \HVQR TXHVWLRQV DERXW DSSHDUDQFH RI HDFK LPDJLQHG IDFH HJ IRU IULJKWHQHG 'R WKH H\HV ORRN WZLQNO\" ,V WKH EURZ UDLVHG" $UH WKH H\HV RSHQHG ZLGH"f ,Q WKH VHFRQG WDVN 2EMHFW ,PDJHU\f WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH YLVXDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI REMHFWV DQLPDOV DQG SHRSOH IRU ZKLFK LW LV DVVXPHG WKH\ PXVW JHQHUDWH DQ LPDJH RI WKH WDUJHW HJ :KDWnV KLJKHU RII WKH JURXQG D KRUVHnV NQHH RU WKH WRS RI LWV WDLO" ,V D GDWH RQ D SHQQ\ WRZDUG WKH WRS RU WKH ERWWRP"f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

PAGE 118

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nV IDLOXUH FDQ VLPSO\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH VLQFH WKH 5+' SDWLHQWV WHQG WR EH JOREDOO\ LPSDLUHG DW DFFHVVLQJ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV YLD YLVXDO DXGLWRU\ LPDJHU\ RU LQIHUHQWLDO SURFHVVHV ZKLOH /) VKRZV VSDUHG HPRWLRQDO SURFHVVLQJ RQ D YDULHW\ RI WDVNV 7KH IDFW WKDW KLV IDLOXUH RQ WKH LQGLUHFW LGHQWLW\ WDVN LV GXH LQ SDUW WR WKH LWV DSSDUHQW LQDGHTXDFLHV UDLVHV TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH DGHTXDF\ RI WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW KLV IDLOXUH RQ WKH LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN LV DOVR D UHIOHFWLRQ RI DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ

PAGE 119

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f VR LW LV WKHRUHWLFDOO\ SRVVLEOH WR UHDG WKH SUHVHQWHG HPRWLRQ ZRUG ZLWKRXW KDYLQJ WR DFFHVV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV LQ IDFW ZRUG UHDGLQJ FDQ

PAGE 120

WDNH SODFH ZLWKRXW FRPSUHKHQVLRQ (OOLV t
PAGE 121

RI WKH SURVRSDJQRVLF GHIHFW ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ LQWHUDFWHG" %DXHU DQG 7UREH KDYH DUJXHG WKDW /) YHUEDOO\ WDJJHG XQLTXH DWWULEXWHV RI REMHFWV VR DV WR LGHQWLI\ WKHP D ORQJ PHWDO EODGH NQLIH S f EXW QRWHG WKDW SURVRSDJQRVLFV KDYH GLIILFXOW\ XVLQJ WKLV VWUDWHJ\ WR LGHQWLI\ IDFHV EHFDXVH IDFHV DUH VR PHDQLQJIXO LQ HYHU\GD\ OLIH DQG EHFDXVH PDNLQJ GLVWLQFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKHP LV VXFK DQ H[TXLVLWHO\ QRQYHUEDO WDVN S f /HYLQH DQG &DOYDQLR f FRQYLQFLQJO\ DUJXH WKDW WKH SHUFHSWXDO DQG PHPRU\ GHIHFWV >LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD@ DUH QRW GLVWLQFW LPSDLUPHQWV LQ GLIIHUHQW VWDJHV RI YLVXDO UHFRJQLWLRQ EXW LQVWHDG DUH WZR DVSHFWV RI WKH VDPH XQGHUO\LQJ GLVRUGHU ZKLFK ZH FDOO GHIHFWLYH YLVXDO nFRQILJXUDOn SURFHVVLQJ S f 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHLU SURVRSDJQRVLF FDQQRW LGHQWLI\ E\ JHWWLQJ DQ RYHUYLHZ RI DQ LWHP DV D ZKROH LQ D VLQJOH JODQFH S f DQG HFKR %DXHU DQG 7UREH f LQ WKHLU UHSRUW WKDW PRVW RIWHQ WKH UHDVRQ IRU KLV >/)nV@ VXFFHVV LV WKDW D VLQJOH GHWDLO RU FRQWRXU LV VXIILFLHQW WR VSHFLI\ WKH REMHFWnV LGHQWLW\ YLVXDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ KDV EHFRPH D nORJLFDO SURFHVV UDWKHU WKDQ D YLVXDO RQHn S f )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ D IDPLOLDU IDFH SRVVHVVHV D GLVWLQFWLYH IHDWXUH HJ %RE +RSHnV QRVH 5LFKDUG 1L[RQnV MRZOVf WKDW IHDWXUH PD\ FRPPXQLFDWH HQRXJK XQLTXH LQIRUPDWLRQ WR SURGXFH D VHQVH RI LQIHUHQWLDO NQRZLQJ 7KLV LV D VHQVH RI EDVHG RQ P\ FDOFXODWLRQV WKLV PXVW EH WUXH DV RSSRVHG WR IHHO LQ P\ JXW WKDW WKLV LV WUXH /) LV DEOH WR

PAGE 122

UHOLDEO\ UHFRJQL]H WKH VDPH SKRWRJUDSKV RI %RE +RSH DQG 0XKDPPHG $OL EHFDXVH WKH PRXWKV DUH GLVWLQFWLYH %XW KH LV QHYHU YHU\ FRQILGHQW DERXW KLV LGHQWLILFDWLRQV RI WKHVH WZR IDFHV DQG KH FDQnW UHFRJQL]H WKHP IURP RWKHU SKRWRJUDSKV &OHDUO\ EHFDXVH IDFHV RI GLIIHUHQW SHRSOH GLIIHU LQ VXFK VXEWOH ZD\V LGHQWLW\ GLVFULPLQDWLRQ ZKLFK DWWHPSWV WR XVH GLVWLQFWLYH IHDWXUHV XVXDOO\ IDLOV +RZHYHU IDFLDO LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LV PRUH DPHQDEOH WR D IHDWXUHEDVHG W\SH RI DQDO\VLV LV EHWWHU FRPPXQLFDWHG DQG PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ LQWHUSUHWHG 7KHUH DSSHDU WR EH D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI SURWRW\SLFDO IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV DQG WKHVH DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ XQLTXH DQG GLVWLQFWLYH IHDWXUHV 7KH VWXG\ RI %ORQGHU HW DO f FOHDUO\ VXJJHVWV WKDW QRUPDOV FDQ LQIHU DIIHFWLYH VWDWH EDVHG RQ YHUEDO GHVFULSWLRQV RI VDOLHQW IHDWXUHV ,W DSSHDUV WKDW IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ FDQ EH DFFXUDWHO\ LQIHUUHG EDVHG RQ WKH OLPLWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG E\ GLVFUHWH IHDWXUHV &RQVHTXHQWO\ LW PDNHV VHQVH WKDW D SURVRSDJQRVLF VKRXOG EH DEOH WR SHUIRUP QRUPDOO\ RQ GLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVNV DQG ZLWK QRUPDO ODWHQFLHV ZKLFK ZH REVHUYHG ZLWK /)f 6XPPDU\ 7KLV VWXG\ KDV UHVXOWHG LQ VHYHUDO FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH IDFH SURFHVVLQJ DELOLWLHV RI 5+' SDWLHQWV DQG SURVRSDJQRVLFV DQG DERXW WKH IXQFWLRQDO SDWKRORJLHV XQGHUO\LQJ WKHLU IDFH SURFHVVLQJ GHIHFWV )LUVW LQ VRPH 5+' FDVHV GDPDJH WR WKH ([SUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV V\VWHP KDV

PAGE 123

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f 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWHG LQ WKDW ZD\ LV XQDEOH WR DFWLYDWH WKH )DFH 5HFRJQLWLRQ 8QLWV DQG PD\ EH XQDEOH WR QRUPDOO\ DFFHVV WKH ([SUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV V\VWHP +RZHYHU ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKDW LV WUXH GHSHQGV RQ ZKLFK GHVFULSWLRQV DUH GLVUXSWHG ,I GLVUXSWLRQ RFFXUV DW DQ HDUO\ VWDJH RI VWUXFWXUDO HQFRGLQJ WKHQ WKH YLHZHUFHQWHU GHVFULSWLRQV %UXFH t
PAGE 124

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

PAGE 125

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f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW QRUPDOV FDQ ERWK GLUHFWO\ DQG LQGLUHFWO\ GHULYH RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP IDFHV +HU WDVNV ZHUH FRQVWUXFWHG XVLQJ VWLPXOL IURP WKH VDPH SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ :K\ GLG ZH IDLO WR VKRZ DQ HIIHFW VLQFH ZH VKRZHG D GLUHFW HIIHFW DQG WKH VWLPXOL FDPH IURP WKH VDPH VRXUFH IRU ERWK WDVNV .ODW]N\ XVHG WKH H[DFW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ODEHOV JHQHUDWHG LQ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ LQ ERWK WDVNV ,Q RXU SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ ZH KDG RQH FDWHJRU\ FDOOHG DWKOHWH DQG WKLV ZDV XVHG LQ WKH GLUHFW WDVN +RZHYHU RQ WKH LQGLUHFW WDVN WKH IDFHV FDWHJRUL]HG DV DWKOHWHV ZHUH DUELWUDULO\ VXEFDWHJRUL]HG DV HLWKHU VKRUWVWRS RU TXDUWHUEDFN WZR FDWHJRULHV ZKLFK ZHUH QHYHU HPSLULFDOO\ UHODWHG WR DQ\ IDFHV 7KXV LW ZDV

PAGE 126

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nV VWXG\ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW EHFDXVH .ODW]N\ UHWDLQHG H[WHUQDO IDFLDO IHDWXUHV HJ KDLUf WKH IDFHV ZHUH DFWXDOO\ VWURQJHU H[HPSODUV WKDQ WKRVH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ +RZHYHU UDWLQJV RI WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH H[HPSODUV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH UHODWLYHO\ KLJKHU LH WKH\ ZHUH VWURQJHU H[HPSODUVf WKDQ ZHUH WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH H[HPSODUV ZKLFK DOVR ODFNHG H[WHUQDO IHDWXUHVf \HW VWURQJ HIIHFWV ZHUH GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ LQGLUHFW SHUVRQDOLW\ WHVW :K\ ZRXOG XQIDPLOLDU IDFHV EH DXWRPDWLFDOO\ SURFHVVHG LQ WHUPV RI DSSDUHQW SHUVRQDOLW\ \HW QRW LQ WHUPV RI DSSDUHQW

PAGE 127

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f LQIRUPDWLRQ UHYHDOHG E\ IDFHV KDYH VXIILFLHQW YDOLGLW\ LQ QDWXUDOLVWLF VHWWLQJV WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR PDNH LQIHUHQFHV IURP VXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ KDV DGDSWLYH YDOXH :KLOH RFFXSDWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ PD\ QRW EH VR UHOHYDQW WR DQ RUJDQLVPnV VXUYLYDO

PAGE 128

HYROXWLRQDULO\ VRXQG LW LV KDUG WR LPDJLQH ZK\ D SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH SURFHVVLQJ V\VWHP ZRXOG KDYH HYROYHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\f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
PAGE 129

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f 7KXV DQ\ ILUP FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI H[SUHVVLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH SURFHVVLQJ PXVW DZDLW GDWD IURP D PRUH FKDOOHQJLQJ GLUHFW SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH WDVN DW WKH OHDVW +RZHYHU LW VHHPV DSSDUHQW WKDW LGHQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QRW UHTXLUHG IRU DFFXUDWH SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH LQIHUHQFHV ,W DOVR

PAGE 130

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

PAGE 131

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f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

PAGE 132

UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV DUH IXQFWLRQDOO\ GLVUXSWHG :KLOH QRUPDO LQGLUHFW H[SUHVVLRQ WDVN SHUIRUPDQFH LQ RWKHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKRVH SDWLHQWV KDYH ORVW FRQVFLRXV DFFHVV WR LQWDFW H[SUHVVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV )LQDOO\ LW ZDV DUJXHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK %DXHU DQG 7UREH f DQG /HYLQH DQG &DOYDQLR f WKDW DVVRFLDWLYH SURVRSDJQRVLD VHH &KDSWHU f LV WKH UHVXOW RI LPSDLUHG YLVXDO FRQILJXUDO SURFHVVLQJ DQG WKH UHVLGXDO IHDWXUHEDVHG SLHFHPHDO SHUFHSWLRQ 6LQFH WKH LPSDLUPHQW RI YLVXDO FRQILJXUDO SURFHVVLQJ LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD LV QRW VSHFLILF WR IDFHV WKH TXHVWLRQ DULVHV DV WR WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI SURVRSDJQRVLD UHVHDUFK WR RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ ,Q PDQ\ ZD\V IDFH LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ LV VLPLODU WR REMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ
PAGE 133

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f ZKDW GRHV LW UHDOO\ PHDQ WR VD\ WKDW YLVXDO FRQILJXUDO SURFHVVLQJ LV GLVUXSWHG DQG f ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D IHDWXUH" 7KLV DGGUHVVHV WKH QDWXUH RI YLVXDO SHUFHSWXDO SURFHVVLQJ $ ILQDO TXHVWLRQ DGGUHVVHV WKH URXWH E\ ZKLFK LPSOLFLW LGHQWLW\ UHFRJQLWLRQ RFFXUV LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD

PAGE 134

7UDGLWLRQDO FRJQLWLYH PRGHOV RI IDFH SURFHVVLQJ KDYH VLPSO\ SODFHG D IXQFWLRQDO OHVLRQ EHWZHHQ 6WUXFWXUDO (QFRGLQJ RU LWV HTXLYDOHQWf DQG WKH )58nV HJ )LJXUH f %XW QR DOWHUQDWLYH URXWH LV RIIHUHG E\ ZKLFK WKH IDFH SHUFHSW LV DOORZHG LPSOLFLW DFFHVV WR WKH IDFH UHODWHG VHPDQWLF V\VWHP $ UHODWHG TXHVWLRQ KDV WR GR ZLWK WKH QHXURDQDWRPLFDO SDWKZD\Vf ZKLFK VXSSRUW LPSOLFLW IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ %DXHU f KDV LPSOLFDWHG WKH GRUVDO YLVXROLPELF V\VWHP GHVFULEHG LQ &KDSWHU LQ QRUPDO DXWRQRPLF UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDPLOLDU IDFHV ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW WKLV V\VWHP FDUULHV YLVXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK VXIILFLHQW VSHFLILFLW\ WR DFWLYDWH IDFHUHODWHG VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW RWKHU IRUPV RI LQGLUHFW IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ VXFK DV WKDW VHHQ ZLWK LQWHUIHUHQFH RU SULPLQJ SDUDGLJPV"

PAGE 135

$33(1',; $ 67(5(27<3( 67,08/86 6(7 '(9(/230(17 ,Q RUGHU WR HYDOXDWH WKH VHQVLWLYLW\ RI YDULRXV VXEMHFW JURXSV WR WKH VWHUHRW\SH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG LQ IDFHV D VHW QHHGHG WR EH FRQVWUXFWHG ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG IDFHV MXGJHG DV VWURQJ H[HPSODUV RI JLYHQ VWHUHRW\SH FDWHJRULHV 7KLV VWXG\ UHTXLUHG IDFHV ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWHG JRRG H[HPSODUV RI VHYHUDO RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOW\ GHVFULSWRUV 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKLV VWLPXOXV VHW FRQVLVWHG RI WKUHH SDUWV f WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV IRU ZKLFK SHRSOH ZHUH DEOH WR JHQHUDWH FOHDU DQG GLVWLQFW VWHUHRW\SH LPDJHV f WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKLFK RI WKRVH FDWHJRULHV ZDV UHSUHVHQWHG LQ D ODUJH VHW RI IDFHV DQG f GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKLFK RI WKH IDFHV LQ WKH ODUJH VHW ZHUH PRVW UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI SDUWLFXODU FDWHJRULHV 7KH IROORZLQJ WKUHH VWXGLHV ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR DFKLHYH WKHVH JRDOV DQG \LHOG D VHW RI IDFHV ZKLFK ZHUH JRRG UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI SDUWLFXODU RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV

PAGE 136

&DWHJRU\ 6HOHFWLRQ 7KH ILUVW VWHS LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH VWHUHRW\SH VWLPXOXV VHW ZDV WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI D VHW RI RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV IRU ZKLFK KDYH GLVWLQFWLYH DQG HDVLO\ JHQHUDWHG SURWRW\SLFDO LPDJHV )ROORZLQJ WKH PHWKRG RI .ODW]N\ HW DO Df WZHQW\ FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DQG LQWHUQV PDOHV IHPDOHV PHDQ DJH 6' f DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD FRPSOHWHG D TXHVWLRQQDLUH LQ ZKLFK WKH\ UDWHG RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV 7DEOH f LQ WHUPV RI WKH GLVWLQFWLYHQHVV RI WKH LPDJH WKH\ FUHDWHG DQG WKH HDVH RI LWV JHQHUDWLRQ RQ D WR SRLQW VFDOH LQGLVWLQFW RU GLIILFXOW WR JHQHUDWHf 7KH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV FRQVLVWHG RI RI WKRVH XVHG E\ .ODW]N\ HW DO Df DQG IRXU FRQVLGHUHG LPSRUWDQW E\ WKH SUHVHQW DXWKRU 7KH SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV ZHUH FKRVHQ IURP DPRQJ WKRVH XVHG LQ VHYHUDO FURVVFXOWXUDO PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ VWXGLHV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV :KLWH f 7KH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH $O 7KH ILUVW WHQ RI HDFK ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH PRVW GLVWLQFWLYH DQG HDVLO\ JHQHUDWHG SURWRW\SLFDO LPDJHV DQG ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU WKH QH[W SKDVH RI WKH VWXG\

PAGE 137

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f

PAGE 138

&DWHJRU\ 6HOHFWLRQ ,, 7KH ILUVW FDWHJRU\ VHOHFWLRQ VWXG\ GHWHUPLQHG ZKLFK RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV ZHUH WKH PRVW LPDJHDEOH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK RI WKH PRVW LPDJHDEOH FDWHJRULHV ZHUH EHVW UHSUHVHQWHG LQ RXU IDFH VHW 7KDW LV ZKLOH FDWHJRU\ [+ PD\ EH WKH PRVW LPDJHDEOH WKHUH PD\ EH QR H[HPSODUV RI WKDW FDWHJRU\ DPRQJ RXU IDFHV VR LW ZRXOG QRW EH D XVHIXO FDWHJRU\ IRU RXU SXUSRVHV 6WLPXOL 7KH VWLPXOL IRU WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXGLHV ZHUH EODFNDQGZKLWH SKRWRJUDSKV RI ZKLWH PDOHV ZRUNLQJ RU JRLQJ WR VFKRRO LQ WKH +LOOLV 0LOOHU +HDOWK &HQWHU 1RQH KDG JODVVHV RU EHDUGV WKRXJK PXVWDFKHV ZHUH DOORZHGf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

PAGE 139

ZKR UHFHLYHG FRXUVH FUHGLW IRU WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ )RXU PDOHV DQG VL[ IHPDOHV PHDQ DJH VG f FDWHJRUL]HG WKH IDFHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV ZKLOH QLQH IHPDOHV DQG RQH PDOH PHDQ DJH VG f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

PAGE 140

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b ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG ZHOO UHSUHVHQWHG 7KXV ILYH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV DWKOHWH GRFWRU DFFRXQWDQW WUXFN GULYHU ODERUHUf DQG ILYH SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV DJJUHVVLYH VRFLDEOH NLQG VK\ LQWROHUDQWf ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU XVH LQ WKH ILQDO SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ )DFH &DWHJRUL]DWLRQ ,Q WKLV VWXG\ VXEMHFWV DVVLJQHG HDFK RI WKH IDFHV LQWR WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ FDWHJRULHV VHOHFWHG

PAGE 141

LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VWXG\ E\ DVVLJQLQJ ZHLJKWV WR HDFK FDWHJRU\ WR LQGLFDWH KRZ JRRG DQ H[HPSODU HDFK IDFH ZDV RI HDFK FDWHJRU\ 7DEOH $ :HLJKWHG )UHTXHQF\ RI &DWHJRU\ 8VDJH LQ WKH 6HW RI )DFHV 2FFXSDWLRQDO &DWHJRULHV 3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HVFULSWRUV :7b :7b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

PAGE 142

VWXG\ VR DV WR SURYLGH D UHODWLYHO\ FLUFXPVFULEHG FXOWXUDO EDVH 6WLPXOL 7KH VDPH IDFHV XVHG LQ &DWHJRU\ 6HOHFWLRQ ,, ZHUH XVHG 7DEOH $ 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU )DFH &DWHJRUL]DWLRQ 6XEMHFWV *URXSV $JH (GXFDWLRQ 6H[ 0)f 8QGHUJUDGV f f f f XS f f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

PAGE 143

IDFH ILW HDFK FDWHJRU\ E\ GLVWULEXWLQJ D WRWDO RI QLQH SRLQWV WR HDFK FDWHJRU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR KRZ JRRG DQ H[HPSODU ZDV RI HDFK FDWHJRU\ 6FRUHV RI ZHUH DOORZHG EXW WKH WRWDO SRLQWV JLYHQ WR DOO FDWHJRULHV IRU RQH IDFH PXVW KDYH HTXDOOHG r r 7KXV D FDWHJRU\ RI ZKLFK D IDFH LV D SHUIHFW H[HPSODU ZRXOG JHW D nn DQG WKH UHPDLQLQJ IRXU ZLOO UHFHLYH D n2n ,I D IDFH GLG QRW DW DOO ILW LQWR D FDWHJRU\ LW ZRXOG UHFHLYH D n2n IRU WKDW FDWHJRU\ WKRXJK LW PD\ EH D JRRG H[HPSODU RI DQRWKHU $ IDFH ZKLFK GLG QRW ILW ZHOO LQ DQ\ FDWHJRULHV ZRXOG UHFHLYH n,Vn DQG Vn 5HVXOWV ,QIRUPDO REVHUYDWLRQ RI FDWHJRU\ ZHLJKWLQJV DQG LQWXLWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH ILYH FDWHJRULHV LQ HDFK VWHUHRW\SH RFFXSDWLRQ SHUVRQDOLW\f FRXOG EH SODFHG LQWR WKUHH VXSHUFDWHJRULHV 7KH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV FRXOG EH SODFHG LQWR $WKOHWH 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ DWKOHWHf 3URIHVVLRQDO 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ GRFWRU DFFRXQWDQWf DQG /DERUHU 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ WUXFN GULYHU ODERUHUf VXSHUFDWHJRULHV 7KH SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRUV ILW LQWR 6K\ 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ VK\f *RRG *X\ 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ VRFLDEOH NLQGf DQG %DG *X\ 6XSHUFDWHJRU\ DJJUHVVLYH LQWROHUDQWf VXSHUFDWHJRULHV 7KH ZHLJKWHG IUHTXHQF\ RI SODFHPHQW LQ HDFK FDWHJRU\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK IDFH DQG JURXS :LWKLQ HDFK JURXS WKH IDFH ZDV DVVLJQHG WR WKH FDWHJRU\ DQG

PAGE 144

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f LV b ZKLOH LW LV b LQ WKH RWKHUV WKH\ UHSUHVHQW WZR FDWHJRULHVf 7KXV HDFK FDQ EH FRPSDUHG PHDQLQJIXOO\ )RUW\ILYH IDFHV PHW WKH FULWHULD IRU XVH DV RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SHV DQG IRUW\WKUHH PHW WKH FULWHULD IRU XVH DV SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SHV ZLWK IRXUWHHQ PHHWLQJ ERWK FULWHULD 7KH WZHQW\ IDFHV EHVW H[HPSOLI\LQJ WKH WZR VWHUHRW\SHV ZHUH VHOHFWHG UHVXOWLQJ LQ D VHW RI IRUW\ GLIIHUHQW IDFHV 7DEOH $ SURYLGHV VXSHUFDWHJRU\ SODFHPHQW 6&f VXSHUFDWHJRU\ WUDQVIRUPHG ZHLJKW VFRUH 67:6f DQG REVHUYHG IUHTXHQF\ RI SODFHPHQW 2)3f DERXW HDFK RI WKHVH IDFHV

PAGE 145

7DEOH $ )LQDO 6HW RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH )DFHV 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SHV 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SHV 5DQN )DFH 6& 67:6 2)3 )DFH 6& 67:6 2)3 $WKOHWH 3URIHVVLRQDO /DERUHU 6K\ *RRG *X\ %DG *X\

PAGE 146

$33(1',; % 3,/27 678',(6 ([SHULPHQW %O 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV SLORW VWXG\ ZDV WR GHPRQVWUDWH IDFHLGHQWLW\ DQG H[SUHVVLRQODEHO LQWHUIHUHQFH XVLQJ YRLFH UHDFWLRQWLPH 3DUWLFLSDQWV 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH XQGHUJUDGXDWH DQG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG IRU FRXUVH FUHGLW XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWVf RU RXW RI V\PSDWK\ IRU WKH H[DPLQHU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWVf 7KHLU DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR DQG DOO ZHUH IHPDOH 6WLPXOL 7KH IDPRXV IDFHV ZHUH WDNHQ IURP WKH $OEHUW VHW $OEHUW %XWWHUV t /HYLQ f DQG WKH DIIHFWLYH IDFHV ZHUH D VXEVHW RI WKH (NPDQ IDFHV (NPDQ HW DO f 7KHVH ZHUH PRXQWHG LQFKHV IURP WKH WRS DQG LQFKHV IURP WKH ERWWRP RI ZKLWH WVFRSH FDUGV 7ZR E\ WKUHH LQFK SLHFHV RI JUD\ SDSHU ZHUH PRXQWHG RQ WVFRSH FDUGV LQ WKH VDPH SRVLWLRQ DV WKH IDFHV %HORZ HDFK IDFH RU VKDGHG EODQN ZDV D E\ LQFK SLHFH RI EODFN FRQVWUXFWLRQ SDSHU RQ ZKLFK WKH WH[W ZRXOG EH SURMHFWHG $OO WH[W ZDV

PAGE 147

SULQWHG LQ EROG SRLQW +HOYHWLFD W\SH DQG PRXQWHG RQ EODFN WVFRSH FDUGV 3URFHGXUH 7KH LQWHUIHUHQFH WHVWV FRQVLVWHG RI WKUHH FRQGLWLRQV f &RQWURO LQ WKLV FRQGLWLRQ WKH VXEMHFW ZDV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK D VKDGHG EODQN DQG D ZRUG 7KLV ZDV WKH FRQWURO FRQGLWLRQ DQG HYHU\ ZRUG WKDW DSSHDUHG ZLWK D IDFH DSSHDUHG KHUH DOVR 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ FRQVLVWHG RI WULDOV f &RQJUXHQW LQ WKLV FRQGLWLRQ WHQ WULDOV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ ZKLFK WKH IDFH DQG ZRUG ZHUH WKH VDPH 7KDW LV LQ WKH IDPRXV IDFH WHVW WKH IDFH RI (OYLV 3UHVOH\ ZRXOG EH SDLUHG ZLWK WKDW QDPH DQG LQ WKH DIIHFWLYH IDFH WHVW D KDSS\ IDFH ZRXOG EH SDLUHG ZLWK WKH ZRUG KDSS\f f ,QFRQJUXHQW LQ WKLV FRQGLWLRQ DQRWKHU WHQ WULDOV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ ZKLFK WKH IDFH DQG WKH ZRUG ZHUH GLIIHUHQW ,Q WKH IDPRXV IDFH WHVW WKH QDPH EHORQJHG WR D SHUVRQ IDPRXV DW DERXW WKH VDPH WLPH DV WKH SHUVRQ SLFWXUHG EXW ZDV IURP D GLIIHUHQW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ HJ (OYLV 3UHVOH\-RH 'LPDJJLRf ZKLOH LQ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ WHVW WKH SULQWHG H[SUHVVLRQ ODEHO ZDV RQH GHWHUPLQHG WR EH PRVW GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH SLFWXUHG DIIHFW EDVHG RQ PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ HJ )ULJKWHQHG+DSS\ $EHOVRQ t 6HUPDW f %HFDXVH WZR H[SUHVVLRQ PD\ EH HTXDOO\ GLVWDQW IURP D WDUJHW DIIHFW LQ WKH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ UHVXOWV VRPH WDUJHW H[SUHVVLRQV KDYH PRUH WKDQ RQH IRLO

PAGE 148

$ VLQJOH WULDO FRQVLVWHG RI WKH IROORZLQJ D EODFN IL[DWLRQ GRW DSSHDUHG DW RQH LQFK DERYH FHQWHU OLQH IRU PLOOLVHFRQGV XSRQ WHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH IL[DWLRQ GRW D IDFH RU VKDGHG EODQN DSSHDUHG IRU DQ DGGLWLRQDO PLOOLVHFRQGV DW WKH HQG RI WKDW SHULRG WKH IDFH UHPDLQHG DQG WKH ZRUG DSSHDUHG EHORZ WKH IDFH IRU WKUHH VHFRQGV 7KH VXEMHFWVn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f ZDV DQDORJRXV WR WKDW ZKLFK WKH\ KDG MXVW FRPSOHWHG 7KH\ UHDG D OLVW RI DOO WKH QDPHV WKH\ ZHUH WR VHH VR DV WR IDPLOLDUL]H WKHP ZLWK WKH LWHPV DQG FRUUHFW DQ\ SURQXQFLDWLRQ GLIILFXOWLHV

PAGE 149

5HVXOWV DQG 'LVFXVVLRQ )DPRXV )DFH,GHQWLW\ 7HVW $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ LQGLFDWHG WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH H[LVWHG DPRQJ WKH PHDQV RI WKH WKUHH FRQGLWLRQV ) S f 3RVW KRF DQDO\VLV XVLQJ D WWHVW IRU GHSHQGHQW VDPSOHV ZLWK D %RQIHURQL FRUUHFWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH PHDQ UHDFWLRQ WLPH LQ WKH &RQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ IDVWHU WKDQ IRU WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ 1R RWKHU PHDQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW 7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJV RI 'H+DDQ HW DO f 7DEOH %O 0HDQV IRU WKH &RQWURO &RQJUXHQW DQG ,QFRQJUXHQW &RQGLWLRQV LQ ([SHULPHQWV %O WKURXJK % &RQGLWLRQ &RQWURO &RQ ,QFRQ ([SHULPHQW 7\SH PHDQ VG PHDQ VG PHDQ VG ([SHULPHQW %O )DPRXV )DFHV $IIHFWLYH )DFHV f f f f f f ([SHULPHQW % $IIHFWLYH )DFHV f f f ([SHULPHQW % )XOO$IIHFWLYH )DFHV (\HV$IIHFWLYH )DFHV f f f f f f ([SHULPHQW % ,QWHUIHUHQFH $IIHFWLYH )DFHV f f f $IIHFWLYH )DFH1DPH 7HVW $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH FRQGLWLRQV ) S f 3RVW KRF FRPSDULVRQV LQGLFDWHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH &RQWURO

PAGE 150

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

PAGE 151

3DUWLFLSDQWV 3DUWLFLSDQWV IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH ILYH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DQG VWDII LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW RI &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ UDQJLQJ LQ DJH IURP WR 5HVXOWV DQG 'LVFXVVLRQ $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ DJDLQ LQGLFDWHG WKH SUHVHQFH RI VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH FRQGLWLRQ PHDQV ) S f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f ZLWKLQ D FHQWUDOO\ IL[DWHG ILHOG RI YLVLRQ 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH WZR PDOH DQG ILYH IHPDOH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DQG VWDII LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW RI &OLQLFDO

PAGE 152

DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ ZLWK D PHDQ DJH RI \HDUV VG f 6WLPXOL DQG 3URFHGXUH 7ZR FRPSOHWHO\ QHZ VHWV RI VWLPXOL ZHUH FUHDWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ XVLQJ D VXEVHW RI IDFHV IURP WKH UHYLVHG )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW ))$7 %ORQGHU HW DO f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f ZDV SUHVHQWHG MXVW DERYH FHQWUDO IL[DWLRQ DQG WKH ZRUG MXVW EHORZ LW 7KH RUGHU LQ ZKLFK WKH WZR WHVWV ZHUH JLYHQ ZDV FRXQWHUEDODQFHG WR FRQWURO IRU RUGHU HIIHFWV &DWFK WULDOV ZHUH FRQWLQXHG ZLWK WKH QXPEHUV SULQWHG LQ WKH

PAGE 153

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f ZKR UHFHLYHG FRXUVH FUHGLW IRU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ

PAGE 154

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f 3RVW KRF WHVW LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH ,QFRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ VORZHU WKDQ WKH &RQWURO DQG &RQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQV 7KH FRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV IDVWHU WKDQ WKH &RQWURO FRQGLWLRQ EXW WKH HIIHFW GLG QRW UHDFK VLJQLILFDQFH ([SHULPHQW % 7KLV H[SHULPHQW VHUYHG WR SLORW WHVW DOO SURFHGXUHV VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVLJQHG IRU WKLV SURMHFW DQG DV D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI ([SHULPHQW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH PDOH DQG

PAGE 155

IHPDOH XQGHUJUDGXDWHV PHDQ DJH 6' f ZKR HDUQHG FRXUVH FUHGLW IRU WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 6WLPXOL DQG 3URFHGXUHV ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVWV $OO LQGLUHFW WHVW VWLPXOXV VHWV ZHUH FRQVWUXFWHG VXFK WKDW WKH IL[DWLRQ GRW H\HV RI WKH IDFH DQG ZRUG ZHUH DOO DW WKH VDPH SRVLWLRQ WKXV HOLPLQDWLQJ WKH QHHG IRU VFDQQLQJ GXULQJ VWLPXOXV SUHVHQWDWLRQ $OO WHVW FRQVLVWHG RI WULDOV &RQWURO &RQJUXHQW ,QFRQJUXHQWf ZLWK SUDFWLFH WULDOV SUHFHGLQJ HDFK WHVW 1R FDWFK WULDOV ZHUH XVHG $ WULDO FRQVLVWHG RI D PV SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH IL[DWLRQ GRW IROORZHG E\ D IDFH RU EODQN IRU PV DIWHU ZKLFK WKH ZRUG QDPHf ZDV SUHVHQWHG IRU PV 8SRQ WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH ZRUG WKH VXEMHFW ZRXOG PDNH D \HVQR UHVSRQVH H[FHSW IRU WKH H[SUHVVLRQ WHVW LQ ZKLFK WKH\ ZRXOG UHDG WKH ZRUG 'HFLVLRQV ZHUH EDVHG RQ WKH IROORZLQJ FULWHULD )RU WKH 2FFXSDWLRQDO 6WHUHRW\SH WHVW VXEMHFWV ZHUH WR VD\ \HVnr LI WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ZDV DQ DWKOHWLF MRE LH TXDUWHUEDFN VKRUWVWRSf DQG QR IRU DQ\ RWKHU RFFXSDWLRQ DFFRXQWDQW GRFWRU ODERUHU WUXFN GULYHUf )RU WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH WHVW WKH\ VDLG \HV LI WKH ZRUG GHVFULEHG D EDG JX\ LH DJJUHVVLYH LQWROHUDQWf DQG QR LI LW GHVFULEHG DQ\RQH HOVH NLQG VRFLDEOH VK\f )LQDOO\ LQ WKH ,GHQWLW\ WHVW WKH\ UHVSRQGHG \HV ZKHQ WKH QDPH SUHVHQWHG ZDV WKDW RI D SROLWLFLDQ

PAGE 156

7KUHH UDWLQJ WHVWV ZHUH GHVLJQHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7KH 2FFXSDWLRQDO DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH WHVWV FRQVLVWHG RI IDFHV SUHVHQWHG WZLFH RQFH HDFK ZLWK LWV FRUUHFW FDWHJRU\ DQG LQFRUUHFW FDWHJRU\ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVHDUFK VHH &KDSWHU f 7KH ,GHQWLW\ WHVW FRQVLVWHG RI IDPRXV IDFHV SUHVHQWHG WZLFH RQFH ZLWK LWV FRUUHFW QDPH DQG RQFH ZLWK WKH QDPH RI DQRWKHU SHUVRQ IDPRXV DW DERXW WKH VDPH WLPH EXW IURP D GLIIHUHQW RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ ,Q DOO WHVWV KDOI RI WKH IDFHV ZHUH SDLUHG ILUVW ZLWK WKH FRUUHFW ODEHO DQG KDOI ZLWK WKH LQFRUUHFW ODEHO 7KH VXEMHFWnV WDVN ZDV WR UDWH RQ D SRLQW /LNHUW VFDOH HDFK IDFHODEHO SDLULQJ LQ WHUPV RI KRZ ZHOO WKH\ PDWFKHG 6SHFLILFDOO\ LQ WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SH WHVW WKH\ UDWHG KRZ PXFK WKH\ WKRXJKW WKH SHUVRQ VKRZQ ORRNHG OLNH KH EHORQJHG WR WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ LQGLFDWHG YHU\ PXFK QR YHU\ PXFK \HVf ,Q WKH 3HUVRQDOLW\ VWHUHRW\SH WHVW WKH\ UDWHG KRZ PXFK WKH\ WKRXJKW WKH SHUVRQ VKRZQ ZRXOG EH GHVFULEHG XVLQJ WKH GHVFULSWRU LQGLFDWHG DJDLQ YHU\ PXFK QR YHU\ PXFK \HVf )LQDOO\ RQ WKH IDPRXV IDFHV WHVW WKH VXEMHFW LQGLFDWHG KRZ FRQILGHQW WKH\ ZHUH WKDW WKH IDFH DQG QDPH ZHQW WRJHWKHU YHU\ FRQILGHQW QR YHU\ FRQILGHQW \HVf 5HVXOWV DQG 'LVFXVVLRQ ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVWV &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV UHVXOWV D UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH &RQJUXHQW

PAGE 157

FRQGLWLRQ RI WKH ,GHQWLW\ WHVW ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ IDVWHU WKDQ WKH &RQWURO DQG ,QFRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQV ) f S f +RZHYHU QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV RFFXUUHG DPRQJ WKH UHPDLQLQJ WHVWV %HFDXVH HDUO\ DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKLV WUHQG WKH VHFRQG KDOI RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH H[SOLFLWO\ WROG WR LJQRUH WKH IDFHV DQG IRFXV RQO\ RQ WKH ZRUG SUHVHQWHG 7UHQGV LQ WKH UHVXOWV ZKLOH QRW VLJQLILFDQW VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV VSHFLILFDOO\ WROG QRW WR SD\ DQ\ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH IDFHV SHUIRUPHG PRUH LQ WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG GLUHFWLRQ %DVHG RQ WKHVH ILQGLQJV DQG GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWK 'H+DDQ SHUVRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ )HEUXDU\ f LW ZDV GHFLGHG WR UHGXFH WKH SULPH H[SRVXUH WR PV WR UHGXFH WKH FKDQFH WKDW WKH HIIHFWV RI DXWRPDWLF SURFHVVLQJ EHLQJ VXSHUVHGHG E\ FRQVFLRXV SURFHVVLQJ 7KLV ZDV IRXQG WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ HDUOLHU ZRUN XVLQJ WKH PHUHH[SRVXUH SDUDGLJP *UHYH t %DXHU f 5DWLQJ 7HVWV )RU HDFK VXEMHFW PHDQ UDWLQJV IRU WKH FRUUHFW IDFHODEHO SDLULQJ DQG LQFRUUHFW IDFHODEHO SDLULQJ ZHUH FRPSXWHG DQG WKH PHDQ LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJ VFRUH ZDV VXEWUDFWHG IURP WKH PHDQ FRUUHFW SDLULQJ VFRUH SURGXFLQJ D PHDQ GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH $ WWHVW LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP $OO PHDQ GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP VHH 7DEOH %f LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKHVH VXEMHFWV FRXOG DFFXUDWHO\ GLVFULPLQDWH FRUUHFW IURP LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV 7DEOH % SUHVHQWV WKLV GDWD

PAGE 158

7DEOH % 5HVXOWV RI ([SHULPHQW % ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVWV &RQGLWLRQ &RQWURO &RQ PHDQ VG PHDQ VG ,QFRQ PHDQ VG 2FFXSDWLRQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ $IIHFWLYH )DFHV )DPRXV )DFHV f f f f f f f f f f f f 5DWLQJ 7HVWV PHDQ VG W 3 )DPRXV )DFHV 2FFXSDWLRQDO 3HUVRQDOLW\ f f f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

PAGE 159

ILYH VXEWHVWV RI WKH )ORULGD )DFLDO $IIHFW 7HVW ))$7f )XOO GHVFULSWLRQV RI DOO WHVWV FDQ EH IRXQG LQ &KDSWHU 5HVXOWV 7DEOH % SUHVHQWV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU VFRUHV RQ DOO WHVWV 3HUIRUPDQFH RI DOO VXEMHFWV RQ DOO VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV LH :$,65 9RFDEXODU\ 0LOQHU )DFHV %HQWRQ )DFHV ))$7f ZHUH ZHOO ZLWKLQ QRUPDO OLPLWV 7KH PHDQ UDWLQJWHVW VFRUHV ZHUH FRQYHUWHG WR GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV DV GHVFULEHG LQ ([SHULPHQW % DOO ZHUH IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP 2FFXSDWLRQ W S 3HUVRQDOLW\ W S )DPRXV )DFHV W S f LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DOO DEOH WR DFFXUDWHO\ GLVFULPLQDWH FRUUHFW IURP LQFRUUHFW SDLULQJV 7KH UHDFWLRQ WLPHV IURP WKH LQGLUHFW WHVWV ZHUH DOVR WUDQVIRUPHG VR DV WR \LHOG D GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH )RU HDFK VXEMHFW WKH PHDQ DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ IRU WKH 57nV LQ WKH &RQWURO FRQGLWLRQ ZHUH FRPSXWHG 7KHQ HDFK 57 LQ WKH &RQJUXHQW DQG ,QFRQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQV ZDV WUDQVIRUPHG WR D VWDQGDUG VFRUH EDVHG RQ WKH &RQWURO FRQGLWLRQ PHDQ DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ YDOXHV 7KH PHDQ VWDQGDUG VFRUHV IRU WKRVH WZR FRQGLWLRQV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSXWHG DQG WKH PHDQ ,QFRQJUXHQW VWDQGDUG VFRUH ZDV VXEWUDFWHG IURP WKH PHDQ &RQJUXHQW VWDQGDUG VFRUH 7KH PHDQ JURXS GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSXWHG VHH 7DEOH %f 6FRUHV OHVV WKDQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 57fV IRU WKH &RQJUXHQW FRQGLWLRQ

PAGE 160

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f (GXFDWLRQ \HDUVf f :,$65 9RFDEXODU\ VFDOHG VFRUHf f 6WDQGDUGL]HG 7HVWV %HQWRQ )DFHV f 0LOQHU )DFHV f )DFLDO ,GHQWLW\ 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ ))$7f b f )DFLDO $IIHFW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ ))$7f b f )DFLDO $IIHFW 1DPLQJ ))$7f b f )DFLDO $IIHFW 6HOHFWLRQ ))$7f b f )DFLDO $IIHFW 0DWFKLQJ ))$7f b f 5DWLQD 7HVWV 2FFXSDWLRQ 6WHUHRW\SH 5HFRJQLWLRQ fr 3HUVRQDOLW\ 6WHUHRW\SH 5HFRJQLWLRQ fr )DPRXV )DFHV 5HFRJQLWLRQ f f & ,QWHUIHUHQFH 7HVWV 2FFXSDWLRQ ,QWHUIHUHQFH f 3HUVRQDOLW\ ,QWHUIHUHQFH f D $IIHFWLYH )DFHV ,QWHUIHUHQFH f )DPRXV )DFHV ,QWHUIHUHQFH fE S E S RL F S LQGLFDWHV WKH PHDQ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP UHOHYDQW RQO\ IRU WKH ODVW VHYHQ WHVWV

PAGE 161

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nV XVH LQ WKH VWLPXOXV VHW 7KXV WKH FDWHJRU\ D IDFH ZDV SODFHG LQWR IRU LQFOXVLRQ LQ WKH VWLPXOXV VHW GLG QRW DOZD\V DJUHH ZLWK WKH FDWHJRU\ LQWR ZKLFK LW ZDV SODFH E\ WKH \RXQJHU JURXS 7KLV PD\ EH RQH VRXUFH RI HUURU FRQWULEXWLQJ WKH FXUUHQW ILQGLQJV $ VHFRQG VRXUFH RI HUURU PD\ EH LQ WKH \RXQJHU VXEMHFWnV ODFN RI EURDG H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PHPEHUV RI WKH FDWHJRULHV XVHG LQ WKLV WHVW /HVV H[SHULHQFH ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ ZHDNHU DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH IDFH DQG D

PAGE 162

VHPDQWLF FDWHJRU\ ZKLFK ZRXOG FRQVHTXHQWO\ UHGXFH WKH SRZHU RI D IDFH WR SULPH LWV FDWHJRU\ 7KXV LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKH UHVXOWV REVHUYHG LQ WKH \RXQJHU JURXS ZLOO QRW EH SUHGLFWLYH RI WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH SULPDU\ JURXS RQ ZKLFK WKH IDFHV ZHUH QRUPHG DQG ZKR ZLWK JUHDWHU H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV LQ TXHVWLRQ

PAGE 163

$33(1',; & 67,08/86 )$&(6 7KLV DSSHQGL[ FRQWDLQV H[DPSOHV RI WKH IDFHV XVHG LQ WKH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW WDVNV )LJXUHV &O WKURXJK & DUH H[DPSOHV RI WKH IRXU RFFXSDWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV XVHG LH DWKOHWH GRFWRU DFFRXQWDQW ODERUHUf )LJXUHV & WKURXJK & VKRZ H[DPSOHV IURP HDFK RI WKH IRXU SHUVRQDOLW\ FDWHJRULHV XVHG LH DJJUHVVLYH LQWROHUDQW NLQG VRFLDEOHf )LJXUHV & WKURXJK & DUH H[DPSOHV RI WKH KDSS\ VDG DQJU\ DQG IULJKWHQHG H[SUHVVLRQV XVHG LQ ERWK WKH ([SUHVVLRQ/DEHO ,QWHUIHUHQFH WDVN DQG WKH ))$7 )LQDOO\ )LJXUHV & WKURXJK & DUH H[DPSOHV RI IDPRXV IDFHV IURP ERWK WKH 3ROLWLFLDQ DQG 1RQSROLWLFLDQ FDWHJRULHV

PAGE 164

)LJXUH &O /DERUHU

PAGE 165

)LJXUH & $FFRXQWDQW

PAGE 166

)LJXUH & $WKOHWH

PAGE 167

)LJXUH & 'RFWRU

PAGE 169

)LJXUH & 6RFLDEOH

PAGE 170

)LJXUH & $JJUHVVLYH

PAGE 171

)LJXUH & ,QWROHUDQW

PAGE 172

)LJXUH & +DSS\

PAGE 173

)LJXUH & 6DG

PAGE 174

)LJXUH &OO $QJU\

PAGE 175

)LJXUH & )ULJKWHQHG

PAGE 176

)LJXUH & -RKQ .HQQHG\

PAGE 177

)LJXUH & /\QGRQ -RKQVRQ

PAGE 178

)LJXUH & %RE +RSH

PAGE 179

)LJXUH (OYLV 3UHVOH\

PAGE 180

5()(5(1&(6 $EGL + f )DFHV SURWRW\SHV DQG DGGLWLYH WUHH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV ,Q +' (OOLV 0$ -HHYHV ) 1HZFRPEH t $
PAGE 181

%HDU '0 f +HPLVSKHULF VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG WKH QHXURORJ\ RI HPRWLRQ $UFKLYHV RI 1HXURORJ\ %HQWRQ $ f )DFLDO UHFRJQLWLRQ &RUWH[ %HQWRQ $/ f 9LVXRSHUFHSWXDO YLVXRVSDWLDO DQG YLVXRFRQVWUXFWLYH GLVRUGHUV ,Q .0 +HLOPDQ t ( 9DOHQVWHLQ (GVf &OLQLFDO 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ QG HG SS 1HZ
PAGE 182

%RZHUV t +HLOPDQ .0 f 'LVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI DIIHFWLYH DQG QRQDIIHFWLYH IDFHV $ FDVH VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI &OLQLFDO 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ %UXFH 9 t
PAGE 183

(LQRW t *DEULHO .5 f $ VWXG\ RI WKH SRZHUV RI VHYHUDO PHWKRGV RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV -RXUQDO RI WKH $PHULFDQ 6WDWLVWLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ (NPDQ 3 )ULHVDQ : t (LOVZRUWK 3 f (PRWLRQ LQ WKH +XPDQ )DFH 1HZ
PAGE 184

*UHYH .: t %DXHU 50 -DQXDU\ f $VSHFWV RI DIIHFWLYH IDFLDO SURFHVVLQJ LQ SURVRSDJQRVLD &RQVLVWHQF\ RI OLNHDELOLW\ UDWLQJV 3UHVHQWHG DW WK PHHWLQJ RI ,16 1HZ 2UOHDQV /$ +D\ '0 t
PAGE 185

/HRQDUG &0 5ROOV (7 :LOVRQ )$: t %D\OLV *& f 1HXURQV LQ WKH DP\JGDOD RI WKH PRQNH\ ZLWK UHVSRQVHV VHOHFWLYH IRU IDFHV %HKDYLRUDO %UDLQ 5HVHDUFK /HYLQ +6 +DPVKHU .6 t %HQWRQ $/ f $ VKRUW IRUP RI WKH 7HVW RI )DFLDO 5HFRJQLWLRQ IRU FOLQLFDO XVH -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ /HYLQH '1 t &DOYDQLR 5 f 3URVRSDJQRVLD $ GHIHFW LQ YLVXDO FRQILJXUDO SURFHVVLQJ %UDLQ DQG &RJQLWLRQ /H\ 5* t %U\GHQ 03 f +HPLVSKHULF GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SURFHVVLQJ HPRWLRQV DQG IDFHV %UDLQ DQG /DQJXDJH /H\ 5* t 6WUDXVV ( f +HPLVSKHULF DV\PPHWULHV LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV LQ QRUPDOV ,Q 5 %UX\HU (Gf 7KH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI )DFH 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG )DFLDO ([SUHVVLRQ SS f +LOOVGDOH 1/DZUHQFH (UOEDXP $VVRFLDWHV /H]DN 0' f 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO $VVHVVPHQW 1HZ
PAGE 186

1HWHU :DVVHUPDQ : t .XWQHU -+ f $SSOLHG /LQHDU 6WDWLVWLFDO 0RGHOV QG HGf +RPHZRRG ,/ 5LFKDUG ,UZLQ ,QF 3L]]DPLJOLR / =RFFRORWWL 3 0DPPXFDUL $ t &HVDURQL 5 f 7KH LQGHSHQGHQFH RI IDFH LGHQWLW\ DQG IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ UHFRJQLWLRQ PHFKDQLVPV 5HODWLRQVKLS WR VH[ DQG FRJQLWLYH VW\OH %UDLQ DQG &RJQLWLRQ 5DSF]DN 6= .D]QLDN $: t 5XEHQV $% f $QRPLD IRU IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV (YLGHQFH IRU D FDWHJRU\ VSHFLILF YLVXDOYHUEDO GLVFRQQHFWLRQ V\QGURPH 1HXURSVYFKRORTLD 5DWFOLII t 1HZFRPEH ) f 2EMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ 6RPH GHGXFWLRQV IURP WKH FOLQLFDO HYLGHQFH ,Q $: (OOLV (Gf 1RUPDOLW\ DQG 3DWKRORJ\ LQ &RJQLWLYH )XQFWLRQV /RQGRQ $FDGHPLF 3UHVV 5HLQJROG (0 t 0HULNOH 30 f 2Q WKH LQWHUn UHODWHGQHVV RI WKHRU\ DQG PHDVXUHPHQW LQ WKH VWXG\ RI XQFRQVFLRXV SURFHVVHV 0LQG DQG /DQJXDJH 5KRGHV f /DWHUDOL]HG SURFHVVHV LQ IDFH UHFRJQLWLRQ %ULWLVK -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 5LFKDUGVRQ.ODYHKQ $ t %MRUN 5$ f 0HDVXUHV RI PHPRU\ $QQXDO 5HYLHZ RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 5RHGLJHU +/ f ,PSOLFLW PHPRU\ 5HWHQWLRQ ZLWKRXW UHPHPEHULQJ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW 5\DQ 7$ f 6LJQLILFDQFH WHVWV IRU PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQ RI SURSRUWLRQV YDULDQFHV DQG RWKHU VWDWLVWLFV 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 5\DQ 7$ f 0XOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO UHVHDUFK 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 6$6 ,QVWLWXWH ,QF f 6$667$7 *XLGH IRU 3HUVRQDO &RPSXWHUV 9HUVLRQ (GLWLRQ &DU\ 1& $XWKRU 6FKDFWHU '/ f ,PSOLFLW 0HPRU\ +LVWRU\ DQG FXUUHQW VWDWXV -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ /HDUQLQJ 0HPRU\ DQG &RJQLWLRQ 6HFRUG 3) f )DFLDO IHDWXUHV DQG LQIHUHQFH SURFHVVHV LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO SHUFHSWLRQ ,Q 5 7DJLXU t / 3HWUXOOR (GVf 3HUVRQ 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG ,QWHUSHUVRQDO %HKDYLRU 6WDQIRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 6KDOOLFH 7 f )URP 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ WR 0HQWDO 6WUXFWXUH 1HZ
PAGE 187

6WUDXVV ( t 0RVFRYLWFK 0 f 3HUFHSWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV %UDLQ DQG /DQJXDJH 6XEHUL 0 t 0F.HHYHU :) f 'LIIHUHQWLDO ULJKW KHPLVSKHULF PHPRU\ VWRUDJH RI HPRWLRQDO DQG QRQ HPRWLRQDO IDFHV 1HXURSV\FKRORJLD 7KRUQWRQ *5 f 7KH HIIHFW XSRQ MXGJPHQWV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV RI YDU\LQJ D VLQJOH IDFWRU LQ D SKRWRJUDSK -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7UDQHO t 'DPDVLR $5 f .QRZOHGJH ZLWKRXW DZDUHQHVV $Q DXWRQRPLF LQGH[ RI IDFLDO UHFRJQLWLRQ E\ SURVRSDJQRVLFV 6FLHQFH 7UDQHO 'DPDVLR $5 t 'DPDVLR + f ,QWDFW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQ JHQGHU DQG DJH LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK LPSDLUHG UHFRJQLWLRQ RI IDFH LGHQWLW\ 1HXURORJ\ :DUULQJWRQ (. t -DPHV 0 f $Q H[SHULPHQWDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI IDFLDO UHFRJQLWLRQ LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK XQLODWHUDO FHUHEUDO OHVLRQV &RUWH[ :HFKVOHU f :HFKVOHU $GXOW ,QWHOOLJHQFH 6FDOH 5HYLVHG 1HZ
PAGE 188


PAGE 189

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ .HYLQ : *UHYH ZDV ERUQ RQ $SULO LQ 1HZ 2UOHDQV /RXLVLDQD +H OLYHG LQ 6KUHYHSRUW /RXLVLDQD IRU \HDUV DQG LV D 0D\ JUDGXDWH RI /RXLVLDQD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ 6KUHYHSRUW ZLWK D %DFKHORU RI 6FLHQFH GHJUHH FXP ODXGHf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

PAGE 190

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ fDZQ %RZHUV $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 4MM8/\;-Wf AIAYUA;& (LOHHQ % )HQQHOO 3URIHVVRU RI &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\

PAGE 191

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n'HDQ &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV f§n 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 192

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


EXTRACTION OF NONIDENTITY INFORMATION FROM
UNFAMILIAR FACES: AN INVESTIGATION OF NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL FACE PROCESSING
By
KEVIN W. GREVE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1991

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It probably strikes most people at some point during
the course of a major research project that despite the
fact that it's "your project" you could not have hoped to
have completed it alone. I became aware of that fact
during the course of my master's thesis so I knew going
into this project that other people would play an
important role in it. On looking back, however, I am
still amazed at the number of people who have made
contributions to this project and I want to take this
opportunity to thank them.
I have been particularly fortunate to have had Rus
Bauer chair both my thesis and dissertation. My research
accomplishments as a graduate student are a testament to
the quality of his mentorship. His example as both a
clinician and scientist has given me a goal which I may
never attain. I want to thank Rus for both his guidance
and friendship. Dawn Bowers, in many ways, has felt and
functioned like a cochair on my dissertation and has given
me tremendous guidance and encouragement throughout this
project. She also happily lent me her only copy of the
Florida Facial Affect Test and gave me access to all her
unilateral stroke patients. It has been a pleasure
working with her. Eileen Fennell and Ira Fischler, as
ii

members of my dissertation committee, have also made
significant contributions to this project. Eileen has
also made significant contributions to my development as a
psychologist. Michael Conlon was always available when I
had statistical questions and was adept at understanding
my sometimes poorly word or conceptualized questions and
generating straight-forward and often relatively simple
statistical solutions. More importantly, as a
statistician who is not immersed in the psychological
belief system, he kept the rest of us psychologists honest
by offering insightful alternative interpretations. I
don't think I could have asked for a better dissertation
committee. Thank you.
Execution of this project was challenging. Many
stages of development were required before I ran my first
"real” subjects. Randi Lincoln was my partner for the
first six months during which we collected photographs of
men and conducted all the preliminary classification
research on those photographs. John Paul Abner also
played a significant role in the photography portion of
this project. It is also important to thank all the male
students and faculty in the Department of Clinical &
Health Psychology, the Health Center employees, and
members of the Baptist Student Center who took time out to
be photographed and became the 101 stimulus faces. Many
of the subjects who were used in the preliminary
classification studies were either undergraduates from the
iii

Introductory Psychology subject pool or persons who
responded to newspaper ads. However, a large portion of
these subjects were members of the United Church of
Gainesville who were kind enough to allow us into their
church on Sunday mornings. Almost no one in the
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology escaped being
dragged into the lab and forced to stare into my
tachistoscope during the initial pilot studies. Tracy
Henderson contributed some of her free time helping me
collect control data. Her help allowed me to run subjects
twice as fast as I could have alone. We had a great
system. To all these people, without whom this project
would be no more than a proposal, thank you. I would also
like to offer special thanks to L.F., our prosopagnosic,
who, for the four years I have known him, has never
declined to come up to Gainesville for testing. Not only
is he an interesting patient and willing subject, he is a
thoughtful, insightful, and kind person.
Running this project was not an inexpensive
undertaking considering the cost of photography and
subject compensation. Rus Bauer paid the cost of
photography out of money that could have contributed to
his own professional enhancement. Ken Heilman and Dawn
Bowers allowed stroke subjects to be paid from their grant
which meant that I was able to get many patients who would
not have made the long trip to Gainesville without
compensation. My mother, Becky Warren, also made me a
iv

"research grant" that helped cover the cost of pilot study
subjects. Finally, the American Psychological Association
made a significant contribution to this research by
granting me a Dissertation Research Award in 1990.
There are many people who have directly impacted me
and my dissertation. But there are some whose major
contribution was that of making the ongoing course of
doing this dissertation less stressful and giving me
energy and encouragement. My wife, Janet Burroff, is
first and foremost among those people. It's hard to put
into words how important it has been for me to know that
she was there to talk to if things got tough. In my
thesis I thanked her for tolerating "my seemingly endless
blabber about this study" and thanks for that is also
appropriate although I think I didn't blabber quite as
much. Karen Clark and Beth Onufrak have been my
classmates for five years and my partners in crime for two
and a half. We have shared a lot in that time and their
company has always made me feel good. My parents, Doug
Greve and Becky Warren, and my grandmother, Rebecca
Musgrove, have always been tremendously supportive, always
thrilled at my accomplishments. Finally, it is important
to mention Danny Martin, who I have probably not said more
than two or three sentences to about the content of my
dissertation. Despite this, Danny has made a contribution
that is hard to measure: He has taken me fishing with
regularly for the past two years. When my stress level is
v

up and I'm feeling discouraged and low on energy, there is
no better therapy than fishing. In fact, there is no
better therapy even when I'm feeling good.
Completing my dissertation represents the culmination
of my graduate career. This has been a wonderful
experience and if I had it to do again, I don't think I
would do anything differently (except start fishing
sooner). I couldn't have asked for better training, nor
for better people to learn from and with. Thank you all.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES ÃœX
ABSTRACT xiv
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Neuroanatomy of Vision
Lateralization of Face Processing
Special Face Processing Systems
Facial Identity Processing
Facial Expression Processing
Cognitive Model of Face Processing....
Extraction of Nonobservable Attributes
Personality Trait Attributions
Occupational Category Attributions..
Summary
Purpose of this Study
Hypothesis
Direct Tests
Indirect Tests
2 METHODS AND RESULTS
Methods 49
Subjects 49
Tests of Face Memory and Perception 53
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information 54
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information... 57
General Procedure 59
Results 60
Tests of Face Memory and Perception 60
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information 62
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information... 74
Individual Performance on Expression Tasks 83
vii

page
3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 89
Summary 89
Discussion 94
Identity Processing 96
Expression Processing 98
Summary 106
Stereotype Processing 108
Conclusions 114
Future Directions 117
APPENDICES
A STEREOTYPE STIMULUS SET DEVELOPMENT 119
Category Selection 1 120
Category Selection II 122
Stimuli 122
Participants 122
Procedure 123
Results 124
Face Categorization 124
Participants 125
Stimuli 12 6
Procedure 12 6
Results 127
B PILOT STUDIES 13 0
Experiment B-l 130
Participants 13 0
Stimuli 130
Procedure 131
Results and Discussion 133
Experiment B-2 134
Participants 135
Results and Discussion 135
Experiment B-3 135
Stimuli and Procedure 136
Results and Discussion 137
Experiment B-4 137
Participants 137
Stimuli and Procedure 138
Results and Discussion 138
Experiment B-5 138
Stimuli and Procedures 139
Results and Discussion 140
Experiment B-6 142
Results 143
Summary and Discussion 145
viii

page
C STIMULUS FACES 147
REFERENCES 164
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 173
ix

LIST OF TABLES
page
TABLE 1-1 Outcome Assumptions Based on a Review
of the Previous Research for Each
Domain of Face Information 44
TABLE 2-1 Comparisons of Patient and Control
Groups on Demographic, WAIS-R Vocabulary
Score, and Time Post Injury 50
TABLE 2-2 Demographic and Lesion Location Data for
Individual Stroke Patients 51
TABLE 2-3 Means for the Tests of Face Memory and
Perception 61
TABLE 2-4 Mean Percent Correct for the Florida
Facial Affect Test Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests... 63
TABLE 2-5 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Occupational Stereotype Rating Test.... 66
TABLE 2-6 Results of t-Tests Comparing L.F.'s
Ratings in the Correct Versus Incorrect
Conditions for Each of the Rating Tests.... 68
TABLE 2-7 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Personality Stereotype Rating Test 69
TABLE 2-8 Simple Effect and Grand Mean Ratings for
the Identity Rating Test 71
TABLE 2-9 Mean Difference Scores for Ratings Tests... 73
TABLE 2-10 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Occupation Category Interference
Test 75
TABLE 2-11 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Personality Descriptor
Interference Test 76
x

page
TABLE 2-12 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Expression-Label Interference Test 79
TABLE 2-13 Reaction Time Means and Standard Deviations
for Face-Identity Interference Test 81
TABLE 2-14 Performance of Stroke Patients on Direct
and Indirect Expression Tasks 85
TABLE 2-15 Association of Stroke Patient Performance
on Each FFAT Subtest with Performance on
Expression-Label Interference Task 87
TABLE 3-1 Observed Results of Direct Tests 92
TABLE 3-2 Observed Results of Indirect Tests 94
TABLE A-l Ranked Occupational and Personality
Category Images 121
TABLE A-2 Weighted Frequency of Category Usage
in the Set of 101 Faces 125
TABLE A-3 Descriptive Statistics for Face
Categorization Subjects 126
TABLE A-4 Final Set of Occupational and
Personality Stereotype Faces 129
TABLE B-l Means for the Control, Congruent, and
Incongruent Conditions in Experiments B-l
through B-4 133
TABLE B-2 Results of Experiment B-5 142
TABLE B-3 Mean Scores for Experiment B-6 144
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
page
FIGURE 1-1 A cognitive model of face processing
showing the hypothetical location of the
functional lesions in prosopagnosia and
RHD 2 6
FIGURE 1-2 Hypothetical cognitive model of face
processing 47
FIGURE 2-1 Performance on FFAT Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests.. 65
FIGURE 2-2 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Occupational Stereotype Test 67
FIGURE 2-3 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Personality Stereotype test 70
FIGURE 2-4 Mean ratings for the Correct and
Incorrect conditions of the Direct
Identity test 72
FIGURE 2-5 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions
on the Face-Personality Descriptor
interference task 77
FIGURE 2-6 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions on
the Expression-Label interference task.... 80
FIGURE 2-7 Mean reaction times for the Control,
Congruent, and Incongruent conditions
on the Face-Identity task 82
FIGURE 3-1 Model of face processing hypothesized
in Chapter 1 90
FIGURE C-l Laborer 148
FIGURE C-2 Accountant 149
xii

page
FIGURE C-3 Athlete 150
FIGURE C-4 Doctor 151
FIGURE C-5 Kind 152
FIGURE C-6 Sociable 153
FIGURE C-7 Aggressive 154
FIGURE 08 Intolerant 155
FIGURE 09 Happy 156
FIGURE C-10 Sad 157
FIGURE Oil Angry 158
FIGURE 012 Frightened 159
FIGURE 013 John Kennedy 160
FIGURE 014 Lyndon Johnson 161
FIGURE 015 Bob Hope 162
FIGURE 016 Elvis Presley 163
xiii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
EXTRACTION OF NONIDENTITY INFORMATION FROM
UNFAMILIAR FACES: AN INVESTIGATION OF NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL FACE PROCESSING
by
Kevin W. Greve
August, 1991
Chairman: Russell M. Bauer, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical & Health Psychology
Human beings are normally able to accurately
recognize the identity or affective expression of a face
based solely on the visual features of the face. However,
these abilities can be differentially disrupted in certain
cases of brain injury. For instance, persons with right
hemisphere cerebral lesions often cannot recognize facial
expression while they remain able to recognize identity.
The converse is true in prosopagnosia which results from
bilateral occipitotemporal lesions. Additionally, normals
can consistently extract a wide variety of other
information, such as information about personality and
apparent occupation (so-called stereotype information),
from a face that does not yield specific conclusions about
its identity or emotional state. While the ability to
make stereotype judgements has been extensively explored
xiv

in the social psychology literature, nothing about their
neurological basis is known, including whether these
processes are significantly impaired in brain disease.
This study was designed to help understand the cognitive
and neurobehavioral mechanisms underlying these abilities.
A prosopagnosic and his 15 age-matched controls and
20 single-event unilateral stroke patients (10 right, RHD;
10 left, LHD) and their 15 age-matched controls were
administered two tests of face perception and memory and
both direct and indirect measures of identity recognition,
expression judgement, and personality and occupational
stereotype identification. Normal subjects and patients
with LHD were unimpaired on all tests except the indirect
occupational stereotype test. The failure of all subjects
on this task was attributed to a shortcoming of the task.
The RHD patients were globally impaired in expression
recognition but were unimpaired on the famous faces and
personality stereotype tests. Their impairment could not
be explained by perceptual dysfunction and, after
considering alternative explanations, this deficit was
attributed to the functional destruction of expression
representations in memory. The prosopagnosic was impaired
on the direct occupational stereotype and famous faces
tests and on the indirect expression and famous faces
tests. His failure on the indirect tasks was attributed
to an interaction between inadequacies of the measures and
a nonconfigural, feature-based mode of face processing.
xv

It was concluded that occupational stereotype decisions
were based on identity information; whether expression or
identity information contributes to personality stereotype
judgements remains an unresolved issue to be explored in
future studies.
xv i

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Face perception is a vitally important process for
primates, including humans, and information provided by
faces plays an important role in social interaction. It
should come as no surprise that the ability to
discriminate faces begins at a very early age, nor should
it be surprising that there exist populations of cells
within the primate brain that respond primarily to faces
and whose patterns of responding may even differentiate
among faces (Baylis, Rolls, & Leonard, 1985). With little
effort we seem able to judge the sex and age of a person
simply by looking at his/her face. Equally remarkable is
the consistency with which individuals make of judgements
of attractiveness (Secord, 1958) or likeability (Greve &
Bauer, 1988) across individuals. We are also able to
categorize faces based on apparent occupation (Klatzky,
Martin, & Kane, 1982a) and facial expression (Ekman,
Friesan, & Eilsworth, 1972). Because of the importance of
faces in everyday life, our vast experience with faces in
a myriad of contexts has taught us to automatically
extract from them extensive amounts of information.
1

2
There do exist, however, certain neurologically
impaired individuals who have lost or are significantly
impaired in the ability to accurately make many of the
above discriminations. Persons who suffer strokes of the
right cerebral hemisphere often have impaired recognition
of affective facial expression, though their ability to
recognize facial identity may be spared (Bowers, Bauer,
Coslett, & Heilman, 1985). On the other hand,
prosopagnosics, who have suffered bilateral brain
impairment, may still recognize affective facial
expression, but have lost the ability to identify faces
(Levine & Calvanio, 1989). The evidence supporting the
conception of face recognition (which is based on
extraction of "identity” information) and affect
identification (based on extraction of information which
is unrelated to the identity of the face) as independent
processes is compelling.
The term "identity recognition" has been used in
reference to three fairly distinct and partially
dissociable abilities (Benton, 1990) . First, this term
has been used to refer to the ability of a person to match
unfamiliar faces. The most notable example of this usage
is the "Test of Facial Recognition" (Levin, Hamsher, &
Benton, 1975) in which the patient must find the face
within a set of six which is the same as a target face.
Elements of the Benton task require processing of faces as
faces in that for some items the subject must match a

3
stimulus face with targets that are oriented or lighted
differently. However, matching to sample or face
discrimination tasks which ask "are these two faces the
same or different people” (e.g., Bowers et al.. 1985) are
often used to screen for visuoperceptual impairment. This
usage will be referred to as “face discrimination.” A
second usage of this term refers to a person’s ability to
indicate whether an unfamiliar face has been previously
presented. Examples of such tasks include the Milner
Facial Recognition Test (Milner, 1968) and Denman's (1984)
Memory for Human Faces. In these tasks the subject
studies a large set of unfamiliar faces then selects the
ones he/she remembers after a delay. This will be
referred to as "face memory." Finally, facial recognition
may refer to the ability to name or otherwise identify
familiar faces (such as those of family or celebrities) as
assessed, for example, by the Albert Famous Faces (Albert,
Butters, & Levin, 1979). This will be referred to as
"facial identity recognition" and is of major interest in
this study. Warrington and James (1967) found no
correlation between an unfamiliar face memory task and a
famous faces task among unilateral cerebral lesion
patients. Similarly, Benton (1985) found a dissociation
between face discrimination and identity recognition in a
prosopagnosic.
The ability to categorize unfamiliar faces in terms
of nonobservable attributes such personality

4
characteristics and apparent occupational category
membership does not rely on knowledge of the actual
identity of a stimulus face but seems to depend on access
(which is not necessarily conscious) to faces with known
attributes. The question arises as to the role of facial
identity and expression processing in the categorization
of faces in terms of nonobservable attributes. The
studies contained herein were designed to investigate this
question.
This introduction is divided into five sections. The
first discusses neuroanatomically and functional distinct
systems for processing visual stimuli. The second extends
this discussion to evidence concerning the lateralization
of face processing abilities. The third section review
reviews data supporting the existence of relatively
specialized subsystems in the right hemisphere for the
processing of facial identity and expression. In the
fourth section a useful cognitive model is then presented
which is designed to explain the various processes
involved in the recognition of familiar, unfamiliar, and
emotional faces. The final section argues that humans are
able to extract from faces information about nonobservable
characteristics that do not lead to judgements about
identity or affective state and raises questions about the
relationship of the former ability to the latter two.

5
Neuroanatomv of Vision
It is now quite clear that vision is not a single
unitary phenomenon but consists of parallel and serial
processes occurring in distinct anatomic pathways which
deal with varied aspects of the visual stimulus. The
laminar and columnar structure of striate cortex reflects
the grouping of neurons according to their functional
roles (Kaas, 1989). For example, there are layers which
typically contain color-selective fields (Illb), while
others (IIIc) are responsive to stimulus orientation and
direction. Additionally, there are the "ocular dominance
columns" and "orientation columns" described by Hubei and
Wiesel (1977). "Ocular dominance columns" are three-
dimensional strips of cortex (not true columns) that
extend vertically through all layers of striate cortex and
respond to stimulation of one eye only. "Orientation
columns" are similar to "ocular dominance columns" except
that they are responsive to stimuli of one particular
orientation only (Hubei, 1988).
Architecture reflects function not only at the
cortical level, but apparently at precortical levels as
well. Kaas (1989) describes three parallel visual
pathways which originate in the retina. The "X" pathway
plays a role in object recognition, while the "Y" pathway
seems to be involved in attention and movement detection.
The third system, "W", is poorly understood but seems to

6
interact with the other two, especially "X", and modulate
and enhance their neuronal firing.
There is further, strong evidence for the extension
of the "X" and "Y" pathways beyond primary visual cortex.
One pathway extends, multisynapticly, from striate cortex
to the inferior temporal area, later synapsing in the
limbic system and ventral frontal lobe (Mishkin,
Ungerleider, & Macko, 1983). This pathway, the ventral
visual-limbic pathway, appears critical for object
recognition (Mishkin et al.. 1983) and has "emotional as
well as 'mnestic' functions which are modality-specific to
vision" (Bauer, 1984; p. 465).
A second system described by Mishkin et al. (1983)
appears to function as the extension of the "Y" pathway.
This pathway runs dorsally in the superior longitudinal
fasciculus to interconnect striate cortex with the
parietal lobe and continues on to synapse in the limbic
system and dorso-lateral frontal lobe, thus forming the
dorsal visuo-limbic pathway. This system appears
important in attention, visual guidance of motor acts
(Mishkin et al.. 1983) and spatial localization of "drive
relevant stimuli" (p. 198; Bear, 1983).
The function of the ventral and dorsal visuo-limbic
systems is integrated in normal object vision. Retinal
inputs to the ventral system are primarily foveal, while
inputs from both the fovea and retinal periphery are
egually important to the dorsal system (Mishkin et al.,

7
1983). Bauer (1984) speculated "that the kind of
processing which is taking place in the dorsal system
involves the deployment of attention and processing effort
toward stimuli which appear significant in a cursory,
preliminary or 'preattentive* analysis. The stimulus is
then foveated, and the visual-discriminatory and modality-
specific arousal functions of the ventral system are
brought to bear on the process of overt identification"
(p. 466).
In addition to the functional differences between the
ventral and dorsal visual-limbic pathways, lateralized
asymmetries are also an important feature of the cerebral
organization of vision. Numerous studies indicate that
the left hemisphere mediates supramodal processing of
verbal stimuli (for a brief review, see Lezak, 1983). Of
greater importance for this study is the lateralization of
face processing which is discussed in the next section.
Lateralization of Face Processing
The right hemisphere plays a major role in mediating
processing of configural stimuli, of which face processing
is an important example. One of the earliest reports
concerning impairment in face processing was one by
Quaglino and Borelli (1867 [cited in Benton, 1990]) who
described impairment of facial recognition (familiar
faces) after a stroke involving primarily the right
hemisphere but also probably extending to the left. In

8
later studies of patients with lateralized cerebral
lesions DeRenzi, Faglioni, and Spinnler (1968) and Benton
and Van Allen (1968) demonstrated impaired face
discrimination in patients with right-hemisphere lesions.
DeRenzi et al. (1968) evaluated 114 patients with
unilateral lesions using several tasks that involved
matching of face fragments to whole faces, matching faces
with different orientations, and memory for unfamiliar
faces. Overall, the right hemisphere patients were
impaired on these tasks.
In a similar study Benton and Van Allen (1968) asked
37 unilateral cerebral lesion patients to indicate which
face from an array of six was the same as the stimulus
face. In one form of the test target face and the
stimulus face were exact matches. In the two other forms
the target faces differed from the stimulus faces in
either orientation or lighting angle. It was found that
while the left hemisphere patients were impaired relative
to the normal controls, the performance of the right
hemisphere patients was significantly inferior to that of
the left hemisphere patients. They concluded that "the
impairment in facial recognition [face discrimination] as
assessed by [these] procedures ... is rather closely
associated with disease of the right hemisphere" (p. 358).
Milner (1968) found that among epileptic patients who
had undergone brain surgery to control their seizures the
right temporal and parietal patients were more impaired

9
than right frontal and left hemisphere patients on a task
that required remembering and later recognizing unfamiliar
faces. Further analysis indicated that the degree of
impairment in the right temporal group was related to the
amount of hippocampus removed. Milner argued that these
findings reflected a visual memory disturbance not the
disruption of a system specific to face memory.
Finally, Kolb, Milner, and Taylor (1983) presented
seizure surgery patients with a stimulus face and two
target faces created by joining mirror images of each half
of the stimulus face and asked them which seemed most like
the stimulus face. Patients with left hemisphere and
right frontal lesions showed a bias for selecting the
target face made from the half of the stimulus face in the
left visual field, while the right temporal and right
parietal patients selected faces randomly. When the
stimuli were inverted the same basic pattern of results
was found. Kolb et al. argued that "the posterior part of
the right hemisphere is specialized for the processing of
complex visual patterns, of which faces are a particularly
striking example" (p. 16).
The right hemisphere also seems to play a significant
role in the processing of faces in normals. For example,
Suberi and McKeever (1977) asked subjects to discriminate
between studied faces and unstudied faces that were
presented tachistoscopically to either the left or right
visual field. Reaction time to indicate whether the face

10
had been studied was measured. They found a left visual
field advantage (faster reaction times) which indicated
faster processing of faces by the right hemisphere. If
emotional faces were studied, reaction times were even
faster to left visual field presentation. Ley and Bryden
(1979) demonstrated a similar left visual field advantage
using cartoon faces. They tachistoscopically presented
(85ms) an emotional cartoon face to either the right or
left visual field followed by a longer (1000 ms) central
presentation of a second face. The task was to indicate
whether the two faces had the same emotion and whether
they were the same character. The number of errors for
each discrimination task and visual field were calculated.
The results revealed significantly fewer errors on both
the emotion and character discrimination tasks for
presentations to the left visual field (right hemisphere)
again suggesting a right hemisphere superiority for
processing faces in normal subjects. Similar results were
reported by Strauss and Moscovitch (1981). These two
studies of normals present evidence for right hemisphere
superiority in processing faces, including emotional
faces.
As one might expect, given the right hemisphere
superiority for processing emotional faces in normals
described above, damage to the right hemisphere also
results in impairment in the ability to comprehend the
emotional expression of faces. DeKosky, Heilman, Bowers,

11
and Valenstein (1980) gave right and left hemisphere
lesion patients and normal controls six tasks: 1)
discriminate whether two photographs are of the same or
different people (identity discrimination; to rule out
perceptual disturbance); 2) name the emotional on a
stimulus face; 3) choose the face bearing the designated
emotional expression; 4) indicate whether two faces bore
the same or different emotional expression; 5) name the
emotion depicted by a cartoon scene; and, 6) choose the
cartoon scene which depicts the designated emotion. The
right hemisphere patients were impaired relative to the
left hemisphere patients on all tasks except #6 (choose
the emotional scene). This suggests that the ability to
comprehend emotion in faces and visual scenes is a special
process of the right hemisphere though these abilities
were also impaired in left hemisphere disease relative to
normals. Covarying performance on the face discrimination
task resulted in the elimination of all differences
between the left and right hemisphere patients suggesting
that the greater difficulty of the right hemisphere group
on these emotional tasks may be the result of a
visuoperceptual disturbance.
The evidence seems to firmly support the conclusion
that the right hemisphere is superior to the left in
processing both emotional and nonemotional faces.
However, no evidence has been presented to argue against
viewing face processing as anything more than a special

12
case of complex visuospatial processing for which the
right hemisphere is particularly well suited. The next
section describes evidence which suggests that facial
identity and expression processing are supported by
mechanisms beyond visuoperceptual processes and
independent of each other.
Special Face Processing Systems
Facial Identity Processing
Prosopagnosia♦ Prosopagnosia is a rare
neurobehavioral syndrome characterized by the inability to
overtly recognize familiar faces encountered before and
after illness onset. Lissauer (1889; cited in Bauer,
1985) categorized agnosics (which would include
prosopagnosics) as "associative" and "apperceptive."
Apperceptive prosopagnosics are characterized by severe
perceptual disturbance and who often are unable to even
recognize faces as faces. Associative prosopagnosics are
able to form a complete visual facial percept but unable
to give it meaning. In other words, they are able to
recognize a face as a face and to accurately match
unfamiliar faces (Benton, 1985) yet completely lack a
sense of familiarity when presented with a familiar face
and are unable to generate either a name for or semantic
information (e.g., occupation) about the face presented.
It is generally considered that the prosopagnosia results
from bilateral lesions of visual association cortex

13
(Brodman's areas 18 and 19) and the occipitotemporal
projection system although there is a persistent
contention that a single right hemisphere lesion may be
sufficient to cause prosopagnosia (see Benton, 1990).
Bauer and Trobe (1984) and Damasio, Damasio, and Van
Hoesen (1982) argue that these lesions appear to disrupt
both perceptual elaboration and visual memory. Levine
and Calvanio (1989), however, have convincingly argued
that "the perceptual and memory defects [in prosopagnosia]
are not distinct impairments in different stages of visual
recognition but instead are two aspects of the same
underlying disorder, which we call defective visual
'configural* processing" (p. 151).
To summarize their rather extensive findings, their
prosopagnosic: 1) cannot recognize the faces of live
people or photographs of famous people; 2) can match
faces, but has more trouble matching different views of
the same face; 3) cannot remember face-name pairings, but
does better in indicating which of those faces were
previously presented; 4) has trouble identifying animals
and made errors of underspecification (i.e., made his
decisions based on single features of the stimulus); 5)
can name real objects generically but had trouble with
photographs; 6) reads accurately, but slowly; 7) had
trouble identifying incomplete line drawings of objects or
those embedded in visual white noise; 8) performed
adequately on word-fragment completion, anagram, and tasks

14
in which words were hidden in rows of random letters; 9)
perceptual (visual search) speed was slow; 10) had mixed
performance on a variety of other visuospatial tasks; and,
11) had a mild multimodal memory defect but had a severe
visual identification defect. These data suggest that
their prosopagnosic cannot "identify by getting an
overview of an item as a whole in a single glance" (p.
159) and echo Bauer and Trobe (1984) in their report that
"most often, the reason for his [L.F.'s] success is that a
single detail or contour is sufficient to specify the
object's identity . . . visual identification has become a
•logical process rather than a visual one"' (p. 160).
This suggests that prosopagnosia is not the result of
a disruption of a specific face processing system, a
conclusion that is further supported by the finding that
the impairment in prosopagnosia is not limited to human
faces. Faust (1955; cited in Bauer, 1985) reported a
patient who became unable to discriminate among chairs
while Lhermitte and Pillon (1975; cited in Bauer, 1985)
described a patient who could not recognize specific
automobiles. Similarly, Bornstein and colleagues
(Bornstein, 1963; Bornstein, Sroka, & Munitz, 1969) have
described a birdwatcher and a farmer who became unable to
recognize birds and his individual cows, respectively.
L.F. (our prosopagnosic) reports being unable to determine
the make and model of cars and make temporal associations
to clothing and automobile styles. Damasio et al. (1982)

15
argue that the prosopagnosic defect involves the
discrimination of any visual stimulus from within a class
of visually similar members. The inability of
prosopagnosics to make a variety of within-class
discriminations suggests that some general disruption of
visual perception is responsible for the observed
impairments in prosopagnosia.
Despite the inability to explicitly identify familiar
faces, prosopagnosics do retain some spared access to the
facial representations (i.e., the Identity-Specific
Semantic Codes and Name Codes). Bauer (1984) demonstrated
this using autonomic measures. He constructed two sets of
facial stimuli containing 1) faces of celebrities and 2)
family members. Each face was presented for 90 seconds
while five names, one of which was the target, were read
aloud while skin conductance was measured. All names
within a set were from the same semantic category. For
example, if Bing Crosby's face was presented all the
alternative names were actors or singers. When a family
member's face was presented all the alternatives were
names from the person's nuclear family. Maximum skin
conductance responses occurred to 60% of correct face-name
pairings in a prosopagnosic despite the patient's
inability to overtly identify any of the faces. Tranel
and Damasio (1985) and Bauer and Verfaellie (1988)
replicated this finding.

16
DeHaan, Young, and Newcombe (1987) demonstrated
preserved access to face identity information such as name
and occupation using an interference paradigm. In this
procedure, the prosopagnosic was shown a face with a
"speech bubble" extending from the mouth. Within the
"speech bubble" was a name which was to be classified as a
politician or non-politician, with reaction time (RT) as
the dependent measure. Three face-name conditions were
used: 1) "same person", in which the name presented
belonged to the face shown; 2) "related", in which the
name presented belonged to a different person from the
same occupational category as the face shown; and, 3)
"unrelated", in which the name presented belonged to a
different person from a different category. Their
prosopagnosic and controls showed the same performance
pattern: the RTs for the "same person" and "related"
conditions did not significantly differ. However, the RTs
for the "unrelated" condition were significantly longer
than those for the other two conditions. This suggests
that knowledge about the occupation of the person pictured
interfered with the politician-non-politician decision
despite the prosopagnosic's inability to overtly classify
the faces. DeHaan, Bauer, and Greve (in press) replicated
this finding with the prosopagnosic L.F. who had been the
subject of the autonomic recognition studies discussed
earlier.

17
Thus, despite profound failure of memory when
confronted with tests whose instructions require reference
to a prior learning episode (direct measures; e.g.,
recognition), prosopagnosics can, under certain
circumstances, demonstrate knowledge on tests in which
facilitation or modification of performance indicates the
contents of memory without direct reference to those
contents (so-called indirect measures; cf. Johnson &
Hasher, 1987; Richarson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988; Hintzman,
1990). This finding is relevant to discussions concerning
the nature of the hypothesized memory processes involved
in performance of these tasks. According to Reingold and
Merikle (1988) "The sensitivity of a direct discrimination
is assumed to be greater than or equal to the sensitivity
of a comparable indirect discrimination to conscious, task
relevant information" (p. 556). The implication of this
assumption is that "unconscious [or implicit; Schacter,
1987] memory processes are implicated whenever an indirect
measure shows greater sensitivity than a comparable direct
measure" (Merikle & Reingold, 1991; p. 225). Thus it can
be inferred that the normal performance of prosopagnosics
on indirect face processing tasks represents the
functioning of unconscious (or implicit) memory processes.
This supports the contention of DeHaan, et al.. (1987)
that prosopagnosia is the result of a failure to
consciously access intact facial representations.

18
Behavioral Evidence. Behavioral evidence that faces
are processed via a special system is limited but does
exist. Yin (1969) compared memory for unfamiliar faces
with memory for other classes of familiar objects which
are customarily seen in one orientation (i.e., photos of
houses, airplane silhouette drawings, and cartoon stick
figures) in both unright and inverted orientation. He
found that inversion made all the materials harder to
remember, but face memory was disproportionately impaired
by inversion. That is faces were easier to remember in
the upright position than other materials, they were
harder to remember than the other classes of stimuli in
the inverted position. He suggested that some "face-
specific process made the recognition of upright faces
easy, but was of little use in the recognition of all
other materials including inverted faces" (p. 397). In a
similar study using brain injured patients, Yin (1970)
compared memory for faces and houses in both upright and
inverted orientations. He found that the right posterior
patients were impaired on upright faces compared to all
other lesion groups and normals, but better on inverted
faces. This finding was attributed to a deficit specific
to normally presented faces. This type of evidence
suggests that more is involved in face processing than
visuospatial ability.
Brain Stimulation and Recording Data. The most
compelling evidence that faces are processed as a special

19
class of stimuli comes from studies of single cell
recording from the brains of humans and monkeys. Heit,
Smith, and Halgren (1988) implanted bilateral depth
electrodes in the medial temporal lobe of patients with
intractable seizures in an attempt to locate their seizure
focus. They found some cells in the right hippocampus
which responded to specific faces. This is consistent
with Milner's (1968) finding that the most severe face
memory defect among temporal lobe resection patients
occurred with hippocampal involvement.
Leonard, Rolls, Wilson, and Baylis (1985) found face-
selective neurons in the amygdala of monkeys. These
neurons were sensitive to two- and three-dimension human
and monkey faces while being relatively unresponsive to
gratings, simple geometric and complex three-dimensional
stimuli, and to arousing and aversive stimuli. These
neurons responded differently to different faces and
sometimes responded to parts of faces. Baylis et al.
(1985) reported similar neurons in the middle and anterior
portion of the superior temporal sulcus. One important
feature of these neurons is that while they responded
differently to different faces, they did not respond only
to one face. What this means is that the pattern of
neuronal firing across a group of face neurons can code
many more faces than if one neuron were devoted to each
face and may represent parallel distributed processing.

20
Summary» The subtle perceptual defect seen in
prosopagnosia is not sufficient to rule out the
possibility of a special face processing system for
several reasons. First, the familiar face recognition
impairment in associative prosopagnosia is dissociated
from the gross visuoperceptual abilities assessed by many
of the "identity" tasks described in the laterality
section. Second, as Shallice (1988) so clearly indicates,
the simple association of impairments (in this case,
either subtle visuoperceptual difficulties or the loss of
ability to recognize bird species with face recognition
impairment) does not rule out separate subsystems. The
dissociations between performance on face tasks and other
visuoperceptual tasks discussed above seem to offer
stronger evidence in favor of a face processing system.
Facial Expression Processing
Normal subjects. The existing evidence supporting
the contention that expression processing is independent
of face discrimination and memory in normals is of two
types. The first is the finding of statistical
independence of performance on face discrimination and
memory versus expression tasks. In other words, when
variance accounted for by performance on a face memory
task is partialled out, the left visual field advantage
for facial expression task performance remains. For
example, Ley and Bryden (1979) found a left visual field

21
(LFV; right hemisphere) advantage for expression
processing (as described in an earlier section) even after
the performance on their face identity task was partialled
out. A similar effect was reported by Pizzamiglio,
Zoccolotti, Mammucari, and Cesaroni (1983) who had
subjects discriminate studied from unstudied faces and, in
a second task, had subjects respond to a particular
emotional expression. They found the usual left visual
field advantage for both tasks. The advantage on the
expression task remained after the performance on the
identity task had been partialled out. They firmly
concluded that "though clearly dependent on a complex
visuoperceptual process to analyze facial stimuli, the
recognition of emotion in the human face requires a
separate and independent process preferentially
lateralized to the right hemisphere" (p. 185).
The second type of evidence which Ley and Strauss
(1986) argue supports the notion of independent processes
underlying expression and face discrimination is the
finding of different patterns of lateral asymmetry for the
two types of tasks. They note that most researchers
(e.g., Ley & Bryden, 1979; Suberi & McKeever, 1977) find a
left visual field advantage on both expression and
identity tasks, but difference in the size of the left
visual field advantage between tasks suggests that several
task-related factors may be important. As noted earlier,
it is possible that the greater left visual field

22
advantage in processing emotional faces occurs because the
addition of facial expression results in a more spatially
complex stimulus than a face without affect and is thus
processed less effectively by the left hemisphere which
doesn't handle configural material as well as the right.
To test this hypothesis McKeever and Dixon (1981) asked
subjects to discriminate between studied faces and
unstudied faces that were presented tachistoscopically to
either the left or right visual field. During the study
phase the subjects viewed two faces with neutral
expressions with instructions that indicated the person in
the photographs were either experiencing a neutral or very
sad emotion. This manipulation sought to add affect to
the faces without changing their spatial complexity. They
found a left visual field advantage in the emotional
condition but not in the neutral condition. They argued
that the effect of emotion on visual field superiority is
not the result of simply the greater spatial complexity of
affective faces but that strategic factors play a role.
This further supports the idea that facial expression
processing is more than just a complex visuospatial task.
Right Hemisphere Disease. Bowers et al. (1985),
using tasks similar to those of DeKosky et al. (1980),
found that right hemisphere patients were impaired
relative to the normal controls and left hemisphere
patients on all tasks. Unlike the results of DeKosky et
al. (1980), this impairment remained after partialling out

23
performance on the face discrimination subtest to control
for visuoperceptual ability. What is suggested is that
the right-hemisphere superiority for processing facial
expression may exist independently of its visuospatial
ability. Bowers and Heilman (1984) proposed the existence
of a "right-hemisphere iconic field, . . . which consists
of a corpus of pictorial representations, or schemata,
[and] is assumed important for categorizing and internally
representing visual images" (p. 375). This iconic field
would contain the schema or prototypes for affective
expressions and the failure of the facial percept to
access this field, either because of disconnection or
destruction, would result in a failure of affective
expression identification.
Prosopagnosia. A number of prosopagnosic cases have
been reported who have had difficulty recognizing facial
expression (e.g., Beyn & Knyazeva, 1962; Bornstein &
Kidron, 1959; Bauer, 1982). However, the presence of
relatively intact facial expression recognition in other
cases (e.g., Bruyer et al.. 1983; Cole & Perez-Cruet,
1964; DeHaan et al. 1987; Tranel, Damasio, & Damasio,
1988) indicates that impaired expression recognition is
not a necessary component of the syndrome of prosopagnosia
and supports the contention that facial expression
recognition is at least partly independent of facial
identity recognition.

24
Epileptic Patients. Itzhak Fried and colleagues
(Fried, Mateer, Ojeman, Wohns, and Fedio, 1982) had awake
seizure patients complete tasks measuring perception and
short-term memory for line orientation and unfamiliar
faces and identification of facial expressions during
seizure surgery while directly stimulating different
cortical areas. Stimulation of the nondominant posterior
portion of the superior temporal gyrus resulted in
impairment in perception (discrimination) and memory for
faces and line orientation. No location was found which
altered face memory alone. However, stimulation of the
posterior middle temporal gyrus resulted in impaired
labeling of facial expression only.
Summary
Two important conclusions can be drawn from studies
reviewed above. First, the ability to recognize familiar
faces or remember unfamiliar ones and appreciate facial
expression are clinically, behaviorally, and statistically
dissociable from perceptual ability as indicated by
performance on face discrimination tasks. Second, the
ability to recognize familiar faces and remember
unfamiliar faces is likewise dissociable from the ability
to recognize facial expression. These findings support
the existence of separate functional systems for
processing facial identity and expression.

25
Cognitive Model of Face Processing
The processes underlying the recognition of facial
identity and facial expression are themselves made up of a
number of subprocesses. A number of attempts have been
made to describe the stages of cognitive processing
involved in the perception and identification of faces.
Baddeley (1982) described a framework for discussing face
recognition which distinguished between two subdomains of
face processing, one concerned with the feature and
topography of the face (facial subdomain) and the other
concerned with their real or imagined semantic associates
(semantic subdomain). Unfamiliar faces would have some
limited access to information in the semantic subdomain
(as evidenced by the existence of facial stereotypes),
while familiar faces would "link with a broader domain of
our memory system than is the case with an unfamiliar
face" (p. 716).
The main themes of this framework, the distinction
between the processing of the physical features of a face
and its access to semantic information and the differences
between familiar and unfamiliar faces, have been amplified
and elaborated upon significantly by other British
researchers (Bruce, 1979, 1983; Bruce & Young, 1986;
Ellis, 1981, 1983; Hay & Young, 1982; Rhodes, 1985; Young,
Hay, & Ellis, 1985). The resultant model is presented in
Figure 1-1. As in Baddeley's framework, face perception

26
Structural
Encoding
RHD ^Q.osopagnosia
Expression
Analysis
Unfamiliar
Faces
FRU’s
Familiar Faces
i
(
i
Visually-derived
Semantic Codes
Identity-specific
(Person Nodes)
Semantic Information
1
r
5
r
Expression
Label Codes
Identity Name
Codes
g^e ^ cognitive model of face processing showing
the hypothetical location of the functional lesions in
prosopagnosia (1) and RHD (2 and/or 3).

27
and recognition as described in this model is not a
unitary phenomenon but consists of dissociable
subprocesses which consist of more elaborate descriptions
of the processing within the facial and semantic
subdomains. The following section describes the model.
Hadyn Ellis (1986) notes, in relation to one version of
this model: "This model is a hybrid of those already in
existence and is offered as a heuristic rather a
definitive explanation" (p. 2). This statement is true in
relation to this model as well; consequently, there
remains some disagreement about aspects of it. Areas of
disagreement are also described below.
At its earliest stage, Structural Encoding results in
a set of codes which allow the discrimination of facial
from nonfacial patterns (Ellis, 1986). One might imagine
apperceptive prosopagnosia as a breakdown early in this
stage. Ultimately, Structural Encoding produces "an
interconnected set of descriptions—some describing the
configuration of the whole face, and some describing the
details of particular features" (Bruce & Young, 1986; p.
308). These structural codes range from the relatively
concrete, "viewer-centered" descriptions like those used
in the analysis of expression to more abstract
descriptions which provide information for the Face
Recognition Units (to be described below; Bruce & Young,
1986). The less changeable, more stable internal features
are more important in the recognition of familiar faces

while both internal and external (e.g., hairstyle)
features are important for recognition of unfamiliar faces
(Ellis, Shepherd, & Davies, 1979; Endo, Takahashi, &
Maruyama, 1984). The result of structural processing is a
set of structural codes representing a presented face.
These codes are the basis of recognition and expression
analysis, discussions of which follow.
A face is allegedly recognized when there is a match
between its encoded structural representation (the product
of structural encoding) and a stored structural code which
is referred to as a "Face Recognition Unit” (FRU; Bruce &
Young, 1986; Young et al.. 1986). An FRU exists for each
face known to a person and functions such that "when we
look at a face, each FRU signals the degree of resemblance
between structural codes describing the seen face and the
description stored in the recognition unit. When a
certain degree of resemblance to one of these stored
descriptions is signalled we will think that the faces
seems familiar" (p. 124; Young, Hay, & Ellis, 1986).
However, Young et al. (1985) found that frequently a face
was seen as "familiar" but no other information could be
generated relating to that face. In fact, Young et al.
argue that the function of the FRU's and person identity
nodes (see below) is merely to signal how closely a
stimulus face resembles a known face, not to indicate that
it is that known face. Indicating recognition is actually
the function of an associated "cognitive" system. Thus, a

29
face can seem familiar and/or look like a known face, yet
not be mistaken for a known person.1
Activation of an FRU allows access to the information
contained within the Person Identity Nodes. According to
Bruce and Young (1986), the Person Identity nodes contain
"Identity-specific Semantic Codes11 which describe
everything we know about a familiar person including
things like occupation, hobbies, relatives, etc. It is
activation of these codes that gives a person a real sense
that he/she has actually recognized a person. As noted
above, however, Young et al. (1985) suggest that
activation of the person identity nodes simply reflects
activation of the related FRU. Another type of semantic
code, Visually-derived Semantic Code, exists which forms
the basis of judgements about sex, age, and nonobservable
attributes like honesty and intelligence for unfamiliar
faces. These judgements appear to be consistent across
observers from the same culture (e.g., Greve & Bauer,
1988; Klatzky et al., 1982a, 1982b; Secord, 1958) which
suggests that Visually-derived Semantic codes are the
product of considerable experience with faces. This data
is discussed in greater detail in a later section.
Bruce and Young consider these two codes to be
qualitatively different since the information in the
1 It is interesting to note the similarity between the
function of the FRU and the activity of the face-selective
neurons described by Baylis et al. (1985).

30
Visually-derived Semantic Code is more closely tied to the
actual physical features of a particular face, while the
information contained in the Identity-specific Semantic
Codes may bear little or no relationship to the actual
physical structure of the face. However, one must
question the need for a separate set of semantic codes for
unknown faces since an unfamiliar face may resemble, to a
greater or lesser degree, known faces and thus gain access
to the semantic information about those known faces in
direct relation to the degree of resemblance. This is
basically the view of Rhodes (1985). Put simply, what
this means is that an unfamiliar person who looks a lot
like Robert Redford may be categorized as an actor in an
occupational stereotype task. This position argues that
unknown faces access the semantic information about known
faces in direct relation to the degree of resemblance
between the unknown and known faces.
On the other hand an unfamiliar face may resemble not
an individual known face, but a composite based on
experience with many faces. Activation of the composite
or prototype FRU may then allow access to the semantic
information which the contributing faces have in common.
Support for the existence of abstract prototype
representations exists. Famous faces are more easily
recognized at a second presentation than are unfamiliar
faces (Ellis, Shepherd, & Davies, 1979; Klatzky & Forrest,
1984; Yarmey, 1971) which Klatzky and Forrest (1984)

31
attribute to the existence of a fairly abstract
representation of the familiar faces. Klatzky et al.
(1985a) found that highly stereotypic unfamiliar faces
were more easily recognized than low stereotypic
unfamiliar faces, a finding which was also attributed to
the existence of an abstract representation for each
particular stereotype. Thus, the "visually-derived
semantic codes" may reflect the activation of special
FRU's which are created as the result of experience with
many different faces. (For discussion of the differences
between prototype and exemplar models of classification,
see Abdi, 1986, and Medin and Schaffer, 1978.)
Bruce and Young (1986) suggest that the Identity-
specific Semantic Codes and output of the Expression
Analysis system (described below) contribute information
to the production of the Visually-derived Semantic Codes
and note that "future studies may allow the separation of
'visually derived semantic codes' into distinct types,
produced by different routes" (p. 313). Research by
Secord (1958) and Thornton (1943) present data supporting
the notion that facial expression contributes to the
Visually-derived Semantic Codes. This data will be
discussed in greater detail in a later section.
The Expression Analysis system also receives
structural code input and the product of processing is an
"Expression Code" (Expression Representation) which is
based on the shapes and postures of facial features. This

32
code allows faces to be categorized in terms of their
emotional expressions. The expression codes may be
thought of as part of the "right hemisphere iconic field"
described by Bowers and Heilman (1984). Activation of
both the Identity-Specific Semantic Codes and Expression
Codes allows access to Name Codes and Expression Label
Codes which then allow an appropriate name or label to be
generated. Activation of an appropriate name or
expression label can also allow access to the Person
Identity Nodes and Expression Codes, respectively. Yarmey
(1973) and Young et al. (1985) found that a face could
gain access to semantic information about a person while
the person's name remained unavailable which suggests that
the Name Codes are independent of the Identity-Specific
Semantic Codes. In other words, activation of a Person
Node does not guarantee access to names. Bowers and
Heilman (1984) and Rapcsak, Kasniac, and Rubens (1989)
both reported patients who could neither name facial
expressions nor select the expression named by the
examiner, though they could both discriminate same from
different expressions and match expressions. This
indicates that Expression Label Codes are also independent
of the Expression Codes.
At this point it is worth noting how prosopagnosia
and RHD fit into this cognitive model. It seems clear
that the FRU's are not being activated in prosopagnosia
because such activation is thought to produce a subjective

33
feeling of familiarity which prosopagnosics do not
experience. However, what seems equally clear is that the
structural information about familiar faces held in the
FRU's is intact because it influences performance on
indirect tasks. Similarly, structural encoding is grossly
unimpaired though subtle defects in some aspect of this
process exist. Thus, the observed impairment in
prosopagnosia appears to result from a functional
disconnection between the output of Structural Encoding
and the FRU's which prevents FRU activation; the FRU's and
the Identity-specific Semantic Codes remain intact and
support indirect task performance. The hypothesized
location of this functional lesion is indicated in Figure
1-1.
In right cerebral hemisphere disease an impairment in
the ability to recognize facial affect is commonly seen
while facial identity recognition is intact. Two
explanations for this finding are possible. First, the
facial expression processing defect could be the result of
damage to the expression codes themselves (Bowers &
Heilman, 1984). This condition is represented by a
functional lesion at #2 in Figure 1-1. Second, the
expression codes may be completely intact but disconnected
from the input of structural encoding (#3, Figure 1-1),
resulting in an expression recognition impairment roughly
analogous to the identity recognition defect seen in
prosopagnosia. Thus, the expression representations would

34
be unavailable to conscious access but their presence
should influence performance on indirect tasks. At this
point there is no data which would allow us to
discriminate between these two possibilities.
Extraction of Nonobservable Attributes
The previous sections have focused primarily on the
processes involved in extracting identity and expression
information from faces. However, there is a great deal of
information conveyed by a face that does not yield
specific conclusions about its identity or affective
state. Examples within the physical domain include sex,
age, race, and attractiveness. Decisions regarding these
attributes can be made relatively effortlessly and show a
high degree of agreement across judges (Dion, Berscheid, &
Walster, 1972). The physical features of a face can also
be used, in the absence of other information, to make
subjective judgements about nonobservable characteristics
of the person including psychological traits, potential
behavior, likeability, or occupational status and these
judgements are also made with a surprising degree of
consistency across observers (Dion, et al.. 1972;
Goldstein, Chance, & Gilbert, 1984; Klatzky, et al..
1982a, 1982b; Secord, 1958; Thornton, 1943).
These nonobservable attributes can be roughly divided
into two general categories. '•Personality" attributes
refer to potential behavior of and quality of the social

35
interaction with the target person. The type of
information that goes into these inferences may be the
kind of data which drives the "first impression." This
research tends to be older and has mainly been the focus
of social psychology researchers. The second type of
nonobservable attribute refers to the occupational
category to which a particular face appears to belong.
Occupational category attributions refer, not to the
actual occupation of the person presented, but to the
category which is inferred simply on the basis of the
physical features of the face. The literature related to
this issue is newer and its purpose has been more to help
elucidate the nature of the cognitive processes involved
in face memory.
Personality Trait Attributions
In one of the earliest studies of "personality"
attribution, Thornton (1943) had subjects rate faces in
terms of kindliness, intelligence, industriousness,
honesty in money matters, dependability, and sense of
humor. He found that ratings of the same face at repeated
presentations within judges were quite consistent.
Moreover, he found that ratings of the same face by two
different groups of judges did not differ significantly.
He also noted that smiling persons tended to be rated
higher in terms of kindliness and sense of humor than the
same person not smiling. This finding suggests that

facial expression recognition plays a role in some
personality judgements.
36
Secord (1958) indicated that one finding repeatedly
confirmed in his work was that judges agree in attributing
certain personality impressions to faces with particular
physiognomic cues and argued that "the perceiver
selectively attends to certain aspects of the face, and
used ready-made interpretations" (p. 303). Thus, in
females the amount of lipstick related positively to
sexuality while bowed lips produce the impression of being
conceited, demanding, immoral, and receptive to the
attentions of men. Older men were seen as more
distinguished, responsible, and refined. Additionally,
darker skin was associate with higher ratings of
hostility, boorishness, unfriendliness, and lack of sense
of humor. Finally, he argued that commonly agreed-upon
facial expression account for some portion of the
impression which are formed in looking at a photograph.
Secord concluded that cultural factors contribute to the
attribution of personality characteristics in several
ways. "First, the culture places selective emphasis upon
certain cues; e.g., the amount of lipstick a woman wears
is more important that the shape of her ears. Second, the
culture provides ready-made categories which consist of
denotative cues and associated personality attributes, as
in age-sex roles, or in ethnic stereotypes. Finally,
various forms of facial expression have become established

as having at least partly agreed-upon meanings in our
culture” (p. 313).
37
Occupational Category Attributions
Klatzky et al. (1982b) demonstrated that normals can
extract occupational stereotype information from faces
that is consistent across judges. She asked students to
describe mental prototypes associated with thirteen
particular occupational categories (e.g., athlete, farmer,
watchmaker) and rate each category with regard to the
goodness of their mental prototype. Faces fitting the
prototype descriptions were then selected from various
sources. A new set of students were then presented with
each face and the thirteen occupational categories. Their
task was to indicate the three categories to which each
face most likely belonged. The results indicated that the
students could, indeed, reliably place the faces into
their designated a priori category based strictly on
features of the face.
In a second study (Klatzky et al., 1982a)
demonstrated that occupational category labels could prime
a face/nonface decision using strong category exemplars as
targets. These exemplars were selected based on the data
from the study described above. Subjects were then
presented an occupational category label followed by two
halves of a face and were asked to indicate whether the
two halves were from the same face. In the Congruent

38
condition the two halves were from the same face and that
face was from the same category as the prime; in the
Incongruent condition, the two halves were of the same
face and that face was from a different category as the
prime. The nonfaces were composed of two halves of
different low exemplar faces. There was also a no prime
condition in which the targets were preceded by the word
"Blank." The results indicated that the prime
significantly interfered with the face/nonface decision in
the incongruent condition but did not affect the congruent
decision. Thus Klatzky et al. (1982a, 1982b) demonstrated
direct and indirect access to occupational category
information in faces with normals.
Summary
Two important things should be gleaned from the
studies into the attributions of personality
characteristics and occupational categories to unknown
faces. First, judges are able to make these attributions
with remarkable consistency. Second, as Secord (1958)
emphasized, these attributions are based on shared
cultural experience which has resulted in ready-made
categories for particular features or configurations of
features. The implication is that two people from the
same culture would be able to extract from a stimulus face
information which would lead to similar judgements
concerning nonobservable attributes of the face.
Conceptually, inferences about the nonobservable

39
attributes of an unknown persons based on physical
appearance are a form of stereotype. Thus, these two
types of attributions (personality and occupation) will be
referred to hereafter as personality and occupational
stereotypes.
Purpose of this Study
Bruce and Young (1986) and Young, Hay, and Ellis
(1986) suggest that the basis of these stereotypes are the
Visually-derived Semantic Codes. As noted earlier, Bruce
and Young believe that both expression and identity-
related processes contribute to the creation of Visually-
derived Semantic Codes and that it may be possible to
separate the codes into distinct types that are a function
of different processing routes. That is, different
inferences about nonobservable attributes may rely more or
less heavily on the processes or codes involved in the
judgement of either facial identity or expression. Put
another way, if the ability to extract a particular
nonobservable attribute is based primarily on information
derived from the expression processing system, then damage
to that system should result in impairment in expression
recognition as well as the ability to make the relevant
inferences. The same scenario could be imagined for the
ability to extract nonobservable attributes that are a
function of the identity system. This logic works well
going from a model to hypotheses, however, going from real

40
data to a hypothetical model is more complex.
Associations between impaired abilities in a brain damaged
individual can never be conclusive evidence that the two
abilities are supported by the same system since, at the
least, a single lesion may damage two independent but
anatomically proximate systems. Behavioral dissociations
within individual patients and across types of patient
groups provide much more conclusive information about the
structure of the relevant cognitive systems, but even
inferences based on such data must be made with care
(Shallice, 1988).
The purpose of this study is to examine the
contribution of expression and identity information to the
formation of different types of Visually-derived Semantic
Codes by assessing the ability of neurologically normal
individuals, right- and left-hemisphere damaged
individuals (NHD, RHD, and LHD, respectively), and a
prosopagnosic to make subjective judgements about
personality characteristics and occupational category
based solely on the qualities of stimulus faces.2
Personality and occupational stereotypes were
selected for two reasons. First, there is a relatively
large body of literature concerning both occupational and
2 ,
This does not mean that subjects will be expected to
guess the actual occupation or personality type of each
face. They must simply judge, based on the appearance of
the face, the occupation or personality type of which the
face is normatively considered most exemplary.

41
personality stereotypes. Second, both intuition and
research (e.g., Secord, 1958; Thornton, 1943) suggest that
the two types of stereotypes may be differentially
supported by the expression and identity processing
systems. Thus, we will assess functioning in the
following four domains of face processing ability; 1)
recognition of facial identity; 2) recognition of facial
expression; 3) identification of personality stereotypes;
and, 4) identification of occupational stereotypes.
As suggested by the evidence of implicit recognition
of face identity in prosopagnosia, direct measures of any
of the above domains of face processing may be
insufficient to fully evaluate the contents of memory or
the status of the memory representations. Indirect tests
may provide evidence that the contents of memory are
intact but unavailable to conscious access or that, in
fact, the representations are functionally disrupted.
Additionally, the extension of the dissociations between
affective expression and identity processing to indirect
measures would be important support for the view that
different mechanisms underlie those functions. Thus
indirect tests have also been included.
These tasks were based on Young, Ellis, Flude,
McWeeny, and Hay's (1986) name categorization interference
paradigm which formed the methodological basis for DeHaan
et al.'s (1986) experiment with a prosopagnosic. As in
DeHaan et al.1s (1986) study, Young, Ellis, Flude,

42
McWeeny, and Hay (1986) presented familiar faces paired
with a name in a speech bubble which either belonged to
the person shown, a different person from the same
occupational category as the person shown, or a different
person from a different occupational category. The
subjects were asked to categorize names in terms of
occupational category and vocal response latency was
measured. The presence of the face interfered with name
categorization but only when the face and name were from
different categories. Thus, with normals, the knowledge
that the person named was from a different occupational
category than the person pictured (Incongruent condition)
interfered with their ability to classify the name in
terms of occupation relative to the condition in which the
face and name were of the same person (Congruent
condition). The performance of prosopagnosics (DeHaan et
al., 1986, in press; see earlier discussion) on this task
indicates that the conscious ability to name or categorize
the faces is not necessary for normal performance.
Thus, semantic knowledge about the person pictured
influences the amount of time it takes to semantically
categorize the name with which it was presented as
indicated by a Congruent condition reaction time that is
faster than the Incongruent condition reaction time. When
this effect occurs in association with evidence that the
ability to directly categorize the face along the same
semantic dimension is compromised, it constitutes evidence

43
that the relevant face and semantic representations are
none-the-less intact. When a person is impaired on both
direct and indirect tasks the interpretation is more
complex.3 The inference that failure on both direct and
indirect tasks of the same ability in a head injured
patient indicates that the relevant representations are
globally unavailable is not logically tenable by itself
and can never be proven unequivocally. However, it may be
possible to generate enough circumstantial evidence to
make that interpretation viable.
Hypotheses
Direct Tests
Based on the literature reviewed above we can make
two predictions concerning the outcome for measures of
direct access to facial identity, expression, personality
stereotype, and occupational stereotype information (see
Table 1-1). First, since NHD and LHD patients do not
3 Roediger (1990) has pointed out that poor performance
on indirect tasks can occur because the initial mode of
processing of a stimulus is different from its mode of
presentation at test. For example, when the target
information is initially processed conceptually, in terms
of its meaning, while the indirect task makes significant
use of the perceptual features of the target then
performance on the indirect task may be worse relative to
direct task performance (e.g., Jacoby, 1983). On the
other hand, performance on one indirect task can be
impaired relative to performance on another indirect task
if the stimuli used in the initial exposure are different
in form on the test (e.g., initial exposure to a picture
of a house, then test with the word "house" compared to
testing with the picture of the house; e.g., Weldon &
Roediger, 1987, experiment 4).

44
typically show impairment on direct tests of face
processing ability, we expect that these two groups will
perform normally on all four measures. Second, we expect
that RHD patients will be impaired in processing facial
expression and unimpaired on tests of facial identity
recognition; the converse should be true for
prosopagnosics. Thus, for the direct tests, only the
outcomes of the RHD patients and the prosopagnosic on the
personality and occupational stereotype identification
tests remain to be determined.
Table 1-1
Outcome Assumptions Based on a Review of the Previous
Research for Each Domain of Face Information
Type of Test
Subjects Identity Expression Personality Occupation
Normal + + + +
LHD + + + +
RHD
+
PA
+
7
7
Note. LHD = left hemisphere disease patients; RHD = right
hemisphere disease patients; PA = prosopagnosia.
In an attempt to be comprehensive one could generate
all the possible outcomes for the two groups on the
remaining two tests. However, doing so would likely add
little to our understanding of this issue. The
alternative is to describe and test the model(s) which

45
seeitt(s) most theoretically and intuitively sound. From a
theoretical perspective, Bruce and Young (1986) argue that
judgements concerning nonobservable attributes (e.g.,
facial stereotypes) are based on the information contained
in the Visually-derived Semantic Codes and that all face
processing systems contribute to their creation. If their
view is accurate, then intuitively it seems that the
expression processing system would be the primary
contributor of information to the Visually-derived
semantic codes underlying personality stereotype
identification while the identity processing system would
supply significantly more information for the creation of
the codes which support occupational stereotype judgments.
The model depicting these relationships is presented in
Figure 1-3. This intuitive position is partially
supported by the data of Thornton (1943) and Secord (1958)
who report that facial expression made an important (but
not the only) contribution to personality attribution.
In concrete terms this model suggests that we apply
certain personality descriptors to unknown persons based
on their facial expression. That is, because he/she is
smiling we may assume he/she is friendly or kind. On the
other hand, if he/she is frowning we may make more
negative personality inferences about them. Similarly, we
may infer that someone looks like they belong to a
particular occupational category because he/she is similar
in appearance to someone we have encountered, either in

46
person or through the media, who works in that job (i.e.,
call someone a laborer because he looks like your
construction worker cousin or Archie Bunker). Thus, the
model in Figure 3-1 suggests the RHD patients will be
impaired both on judgement of facial expression and
personality while remaining unimpaired on tests of
identity recognition and occupational stereotype judgment.
The prosopagnosic, of course, should show the opposite
pattern.
Indirect Tests
To the extent that the relevant facial
representations are disrupted, performance on both the
direct and indirect measures tapping the ability to
process that type of facial stimulus will be impaired.
For example, Bowers and Heilman (1984) have suggested that
failure of right-hemisphere patients to overtly categorize
facial expression may result from destruction or
dysfunction of the facial expression representations. If
this is the case then failure on both direct and indirect
expression recognition tests should be observed. If, on
the other hand, the representations are intact, right-
hemisphere patients should perform "normally" on the
indirect expression tests yet remain impaired on the
direct measures.
A corollary of the above hypothesis is that if two
abilities (e.g., famous face recognition and stereotype

47
i
Figure 1-2. Hypothetical cognitive model of face
processing.

48
identification) are based on the same information,
performance on measures of the two abilities should be
correlated. For example, since the disability in
prosopagnosia appears to be one of conscious access to
intact facial representations, if either or both of the
stereotype processing abilities is supported by the
identity processing system then performance on indirect
measures of that stereotype processing ability should be
unimpaired. If, on the other hand, the stereotype
processing ability requires access to expression
representations which are dysfunctional, thus impairing
performance on indirect expression tests, that stereotype
processing ability should be likewise impaired.
Consequently, we predict that the RHD patients should
remain unimpaired on the identity and occupational
stereotype tasks, and should be impaired on the
personality and expression tasks ¿f the contents of the
Expression system are unusable, otherwise they should
perform normally. The prosopagnosic should perform
normally on all the indirect tasks.

CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND RESULTS
Methods
Subjects
Prosopacmosic Patient. L.F. (who has been reported
frequently; e.g., Bauer 1982, 1984; Bauer & Trobe, 1984;
Greve & Bauer, 1989, 1990) is a 47-year-old male with 16
years of education who, in 1979, sustained bilateral
occipitotemporal hematomas as the result of a motorcycle
accident which left him with profound and stable
prosopagnosia, decreased color vision, an altitudinal
hemianopia with a left inferior congruous quadrantanopia,
and decreased emotional responsiveness to visual stimuli.
See Table 2-1 for a comparison of Our prosopagnosic1s age,
education, WAIS-R Vocabulary Scaled Score, and time post
injury (TPI) with the other patient and control groups.
Unilateral Stroke Patients. The stroke patients were
ten right hemisphere damaged patients (RHD; mean age = 64.0,
sd = 5.14; mean education = 12.0, sd = 3.62) and ten left
hemisphere damaged patients (LHD; mean age = 61.0, sd =
8.53; mean education = 12.6, sd = 2.75) who were
participants in ongoing neuropsychological studies at the
Gainesville Veterans Administration Medical Center. All
49

50
Table 2-1
Comparisons of Patient and Control Groups on Demographic
Variables. WAIS-R Vocabulary Score, and Time Post Injury
(TPI)
Variable
Group
Age
Education
Vocabulary
TPI
Young
m
sd
43.13a
2.69
16.4 6a
2.32
13.60a
2.97
N/A
L.F.
47ab
16ab
13ab
129.0a
Older
m
sd
65.80b
5.02
14.73ab
2.81
12.64ab
2.84
N/A
LHD
m
61.00b
12.60b
8.10c
98.1a
sd
8.54
2.76
2.23
87.6
RHD
m
64.00b
12.00b
10.50bc
43.4a
sd
5.14
3.62
2.55
64.6
abc within each column,
significantly different
groups with the same
at p < .05.
letter are
patients had sustained a single unilateral stroke, or if a
second stroke occurred it included the area of the original
stroke. No patients with lesions of two or more areas of
the brain were included. Table 2-1 provides specific
demographic data for these subject compared to control
subjects and Table 2-2 lists relevant demographic data and
lesion location for each stroke patient.
Normal Controls. Fifteen adults aged 40-50 (Young;
mean age =43.13, sd = 2.69) were recruited from the
community to serve as controls for the prosopagnosic and
fifteen adults aged 60-70 (Older; mean age = 65.8, sd =
5.02), also from the community, served as controls for the

51
Table 2-2
Demographic and Lesion Locationl Data for Individual Stroke
Patients
Left Hemisphere Disease Patients
Patient
Age
Ed
Sex
TPI
F
P
T
0
LI
52
14
F
18
—
+
+
—
L2
63
12
M
276
o
o
o
o
L3
56
7
M
11
+
+
+
+
L4
60
13
M
33
o
o
o
o
L5
73
14
M
143
—
+
+
—
L6
65
15
M
11
—
—
+
—
L7
74
14
M
83
-
+
+
+
L8
57
16
M
192
+
+
+
-
L9
47
12
M
84
+
+
+
-
L10
63
9
Right
M 120
Hemisphere
+
Disease
+ +
Patients
Patient
Age
Ed
Sex
TPI
F
P
T
0
R1
66
8
M
12
—
+
+
—
R2
68
11
M
20
+
+
+
-
R3
55
12
M
6
o
o
o
o
R4
63
12
M
162
+
+
+
-
R5
67
16
M
38
+
+
+
-
R6
67
13
M
13
+
+
+
R7
55
8
M
8
+
+
+
-
R8
65
12
M
7
o
o
o
o
R9
64
8
M
1
+
+
+
-
RIO
70
19
M
167
+
+
+
-
Note. 1
TPI =
time
post
inj ury;
F = frontal;
p =
parietal;
= temporal; 0 = occipital
1 Lesion location refers to the major brain structures
involved in the stroke. Size of lesion is not implied by
the number of structures involved. ('+' means that structure
contains part of the lesion; 'o' means the lesion has not
been localized beyond the hemisphere level)
stroke patients. All participants were born and raised in
the United States which insured a relatively circumscribed
cultural base

Group Comparisons. Individual one-way ANOVA's were
conducted to evaluate group effects for age, education,
WAIS-R Vocabulary scaled score, and TPI. A significant
52
Group effect was found for age (F [3,46] = 53.15, p = .0001)
with the Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsh Multiple F post hoc test
(REGWF; Ryan, 1959, 1960; Einot & Gabriel, 1975; Welsch,
1977) indicating that the Young control group was, in fact,
significantly younger than the Older control group and both
stroke groups. No differences were found between the Older
control group and the two stroke groups. L.F.'s age was not
significantly different from the Young Control group.1
Significant Group differences were found for education (F
[3,46] = 6.37, p = .0011) with the REGWF indicating that the
two control groups were not significantly different from
each other, and that the Younger control group was
significantly better educated than the two stroke groups.
Educational background of the Older control group and the
two stroke groups did not differ. L.F. also did not differ
from the Young Control group. A significant group effect (F
[3,45] = 9.47, p = .0001)2 was also found for WAIS-R
1 Except where indicated, L.F.'s scores were compared to
the means of the Younger control group using 95% confidence
intervals derived from the formula: Cl = m + ts; where m =
sample mean, t = the t-value for a give alpha level divided
by 2, and s = the sample standard deviation. Confidence
intervals were calculated using the transformed data and
reconverted to original units for presentation.
2
One Older Control subject who had worked as a
psychological technician and who was familiar with the WAIS-
R was not given the Vocabulary subtest.

53
Vocabulary scaled scores. The REGWF indicated that the two
control groups did not differ, the Older control group and
the RHD patients did not differ, and the two stroke groups
did not differ. Again, L.F. did not differ significantly
from his control group. Finally, the two stroke groups did
not differ significantly in months since injury (t = 1.5893,
p = .1294). Nor was L.F.'s TPI significantly different from
the stroke patients.
To summarize the findings of this set of analyses, the
Younger control group and L.F. did not significantly differ
on any of the three variables. Additionally, the Older
control group did not differ significantly from the two
stroke groups on age or education, but did differ from the
LHD group on WAIS-R Vocabulary scaled score. However, the
RHD patients did not differ significantly from the LHD
patients on vocabulary score. The patient groups did not
differ in TPI. Thus the patients are well matched to their
respective control groups.
Tests of Face Memory and Perception
Milner Facial Recognition Test. In the Milner Facial
Recognition Test (Milner, 1968) the subject was instructed
to study an array of 12 unfamiliar male and female faces for
45 seconds. Following a distraction period of 90 seconds
the subject was presented with an array of 25 faces which
contained the original 12. The subject's task was to select
the twelve faces he/she remembered from the original array.

Test of Facial Recognition-Short Form. The Test of
Facial Recognition-Short Form (Levin, Hamsher, & Benton,
54
1975) is a test of face perception, rather than memory, in
which the subject was presented with a single front view of
a face which he/she must match with one face in an array of
six faces. The first six arrays contained one view which
matched the stimulus face exactly. The arrays of the
remaining seven items contained three photographs of the
stimulus person taken under different lighting conditions or
from a different angle. For these items the subject
selected the three faces which were photographs of the same
stimulus person. The total score is the number of correct
out of 54 after correction for age and education.
Identity Discrimination. Identity Discrimination is
the first subtest of the Florida Facial Affect Test (see
T
below) and consists of twenty vertically arranged pairs of
female faces with neutral expressions and whose hair is
covered with a surgical cap. Half of the pairs consist of
identical photographs of the same person and half consist of
photographs of two different persons. The subject's task is
to indicate whether the photographs are of the same or
different persons.
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information
Florida Facial Affect Test. The Florida Facial Affect
Test (FFAT) is part of the Florida Affect Battery-Revised
(Blonder, Bowers, & Heilman, 1991) which was designed to

55
assess receptive processing of emotional faces and prosody,
and consists of three parts. Part I, the Florida Facial
Affect Test, is comprised of five face perception subtests.
Subtest 1 was described above. Subtest 2 (Facial Affect
Discrimination) measures the patient's ability to
discriminate emotional facial expressions across different
persons. Twenty pairs of vertically arranged faces are
presented. The two faces in each pair are never the same
person but for half the pairs, the two people have the same
expression and for half they have different expressions.
The subject's task is to indicate whether the facial
expressions are the same or different. In Subtest 3 (Facial
Affect Naming) twenty individual faces with happy, sad,
angry, frightened, or neutral expressions are present to the
patient who must then name the emotional expression on the
face. In Subtest 4 (Facial Affect Selection) the patient
must select from a set of five faces the one face bearing
the expression named by the examiner. Finally, in Subtest 5
(Facial Affect Matching) the patient must select the face
among a set of five which bears the same expression as a
stimulus face.
Stereotype and Identity Rating Tests. Three rating
tests were specifically designed for this study to measure
direct access to occupational and personality stereotype and
face identity information. The Occupational and Personality
Stereotype rating tests each consisted of 10 faces presented
twice, once each with its "correct" category and "incorrect"

56
category. The "correct" category was the one into which it
was placed most frequently by an independent sample of
subjects while the "incorrect" category was the one into
which it was placed least frequently (see Appendix A for
details). The test of face identity contained 10 famous
faces presented twice, once with its correct name and once
with the name of another person famous at about the same
time but from a different occupational category. In all
tests half of the faces were paired first with the correct
label and half with the incorrect label.
The subject's task was to rate how well each face and
its associated label (occupational category, personality
descriptor, or name, depending on the test) matched using a
9-point Likert scale. Specifically, in the Occupational
Stereotype Rating test the subjects rated how much they
thought the person shown looked like he belonged to the
associated occupational category (1 = "very much no"; 9 =
"very much yes"). In the Personality Stereotype Rating test
the subjects rated how much they thought the person shown
would be described using the personality descriptor
presented (again, 1 = "very much no"; 9 = "very much yes").
Finally, on the Identity Rating test, the subjects indicated
how confident they were that the face and name went together
(1 = "very confident no"; 9 = "very confident yes"). Thus,
if a subject was perfectly accurate, he/she would produce a
mean of 9 for the 10 "correct" face-label pairing and a mean
of 1 for the 10 "incorrect" face-label pairings. The

57
magnitude of the difference between the two means thus
indicated how well they were able to discriminate between
"correct" and "incorrect" pairings.
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information
The tests of indirect access to face information
consisted of four interference tasks (Young, Ellis, Flude,
McWeeny, & Hay, 1986) addressing access to information about
perceived occupational and personality category membership,
emotional facial expression, and facial identity. All four
tasks consisted of 40 trials (10 congruent, 10 incongruent,
20 control) with five practice trials preceding each test.
In the Congruent Condition, the label following the facial
photograph was consistent with the face. For example, for
the Occupation-Category and the Personality-Descriptor
Interference Tasks, the category or descriptor presented
would be the one into which the face was placed most
frequently (see Appendix A); in the Expression-Label
Interference Task, the emotional state of the stimulus
person as implied by her expression would be accurately
described by the word which followed the photograph (e.g., a
smiling face would be followed by the word "happy");
finally, in the Face-Identity Interference Task, a
photograph of a famous person would be followed by that
person's name (e.g., a photograph of Lyndon Johnson would be
followed by the name "Lyndon Johnson"). In the Incongruent
Condition, the face and label did not match. In the Control

58
Condition, the face was replaced with a blank gray rectangle
with the same dimensions as the face photographs. Each gray
blank was followed by one of the labels used in the relevant
test such that each label paired with a photograph appeared
at least once with a blank. Trials of each condition were
distributed in a pseudo-random order throughout the test
such that half the faces were presented in the congruent
condition first.
All interference test stimuli were aligned such that
the fixation dot, eyes of the face, and word were all at the
same vertical position on the tachistoscope card, thus
allowing central fixation without scanning during stimulus
presentation. The stimuli were presented on a Gerbrands
G1135 (T-4A) four-field tachistoscope with a G1151 Gerbrands
Automatic Card Changer and reaction time was measured with a
voice activated millisecond timer. A trial consisted of a
500ms presentation of the fixation dot, followed by a face
or blank for 500ms, after which the label (or name) was
presented for 3000ms. For the Occupation, Personality, and
Identity tasks the subject would "yes" or "no" (based upon
criteria described below) upon the appearance of the word.
For the Expression task the word was simply read as quickly
as possible. The subjects were always instructed to focus
on the word, ignoring the facial stimuli (including the
blanks).
Decisions were based on the following criteria. For
the Face-Occupation Category Interference task, subjects

59
were to say "yes" if the occupational category was an
athletic job (quarterback, shortstop) and "no" for any other
occupation (accountant, doctor, laborer, truck driver). For
the Face-Personality Descriptor task they said "yes" if the
i
word described a "bad guy" (aggressive, intolerant) and "no"
if it described anyone else (kind, sociable, shy). In the
Expression-Label Interference task, subjects simply read the
emotion label as it appeared (rather than making a decision
about it, as in the other tests). Finally, in the Face-
Identity Interference task, they responded "yes" when the
name presented was that of a politician.
General Procedure
Subjects entered the laboratory and completed the
informed consent form. They were given the instructions and
allowed to review the words for each interference task
immediately prior to the administration of each. Following
the completion of the interference tasks, the Vocabulary
subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised
(WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981) was completed. The face memory and
perception tests and the tests of direct access to face
information were administered last. The following is a
summary of the order of test administration: 1) Face-
Occupation Category Interference; 2) Face-Personality
Descriptor Interference; 3) Expression-Label Interference;
4) Face-Identity Interference; 5) WAIS-R Vocabulary; 6)
Milner Facial Recognition Test; 7) Benton Test of Facial

60
Recognition; 8) Occupation Stereotype Rating; 9) Personality
Stereotype Rating; 10) Face Identity Rating; and, 11)
Florida Facial Affect Test. Following completion of all
tests the subjects were debriefed. All control subjects and
stroke patients were tested once. L.F. was tested four
times to ensure a more reliable evaluation.
Results3
Tests of Face Memory and Perception
The scores for the Milner Facial Recognition Test
(Milner; number of correct recognitions out of 12), Benton
Test of Facial Recognition (Benton; mean corrected long form
score), and the FFAT Identity Discrimination Subtest
(percent correct) were analyzed in separate one-way (Group)
ANOVAs. A significant group effect was found for the Milner
score (F [3,46] = 3.71, p = .0180) with the REGWF indicating
that the two stroke groups did not significantly differ, nor
were there differences among the two control groups and the
LHD group. However, the RHD group performed significantly
worse than the two control groups. L.F.' s performance on
the Milner was in the impaired range according to Milner's
3 • • •
All descriptive statistics and analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were computed using SAS Version 6 (SAS Institute,
Inc.) on a Compac 386 personal computer. Scores represented
as proportions (Benton, Milner, and all FFAT scores) were
transformed using the arcsin square-root transformation to
stabilize the variance (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985).
All reaction times were log transformed to reduce skewness
(Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985). All transformed
variables were reconverted to the original units for
presentation purposes.

61
suggested cut-offs (Milner, 1968). For the Benton,
significant differences were also found, F (3,46) = 15.18, p
= .0001. The REGWF indicated that the RHD patients
performed significantly worse than all other groups and that
the LHD patients performed worse than the Younger controls.
On the Benton, L.F. performed within the normal range
according to Benton's norms (Benton, Hamsher, Varney, &
Spreen, 1983). On the second test of face perception, FFAT
Identity Discrimination, the RHD group was significantly
worse (F [3,46] = 11.99, p = .0001) than the other three
groups and L.F. (who was 100% correct) did not differ from
the controls or the LHD group. Thus, the RHD patients were
impaired relative to the LHD and NHD subjects on all three
tests, while the prosopagnosic was only impaired on the test
of face memory. Clearly, basic face perception is a problem
for the RHD patients. See Table 2-3 for details.
Table 2-3
Means for the Tests of Face Memory and Perception
Group
Milner
Younger
8.40
(1.50)a
L.F.
7.00
(1.00)b
Older
8.60
(1.55)a
LHD
7.60
(1.17)a
RHD
6.80
(1.55)b
FFAT Identity
Benton Discrimination
48.60 (3.69)a 98 (3.16)a
43.50 (3.00)a 100 (0.00)a
47.07 (2.87)ab 96 (5.49)a
43.80 (4.69)b 93 (6.75)a
36.80 (5.13)C 78 (16.1)b
ab column means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05.

62
Tests of Direct Access to Face Information
Florida Facial Affect Test. The remainder of the FFAT
subtests (Affect Discrimination, Naming, Selection, and
Matching) address affective processing and were submitted to
a 4 (Group) x 4 (Subtest) mixed-block ANOVA which revealed a
significant Group by Subtest interaction, F [9,138] = 3.06,
p = .0023. Follow-up ANOVAs and REGWFs evaluating group
differences on each subtest indicated that for Affect
Discrimination and Affect Naming the Control groups
performed significantly better than the stroke groups (F
[3,46] = 13.10, p = .0001 and F [3,46] = 8.15, p = .0002,
respectively). For both tests, L.F. did not differ
significantly from his control group. For Affect Selection,
the RHD group performed significantly worse than the LHD
group and from controls, F (3,46) = 14.44, p = .0001, and
L.F. performed significantly worse than the Younger Control
group. Finally, for Affect Matching, the RHD group was
significantly worse than the LHD group which was
significantly worse than the control groups, F (3,46) =
19.61, p = .0001. Again, L.F. did not differ from the
Younger control group.
When Subtest differences were evaluated within each
Group the following results occurred. The Young control
group scored significantly higher on Affect Selection than
on Affect Matching which was significantly higher than both
Affect Discrimination and Affect Naming (F [3,42] = 11.06, p
= .0001). For the Older control group only Affect Selection

63
and Affect Discrimination differed significantly, with
Affect Selection being higher (F [3,42] = 3.68, p = .0194).
For the LHD patients Affect Selection was significantly
higher than the other subtests (F [3,27] = 11.19, p =
.0001). Finally, for the RHD patients Affect Selection was
performed significantly better than Affect Discrimination
and Affect Matching and Affect Naming was performed
significantly better than Affect Matching. Refer to Table
2-4 for a summary of these findings. In general, the
prosopagnosic was unimpaired on these tests while the RHD
patients differed from all other groups on Affect Selection
Table 2-4
Mean Percent Correct for the Florida Facial Affect Test
Affect Discrimination. Naming, Selection, and Matching
Subtests
Subtest
Group
Discrim.
Naming
Selection
Matching
Younger
in
93.0ax
92.7ax
99.3bx
96.7cY
sd
6.21
6.23
1.76
4.08
L.F.
in
87.5X
87.5X
93.8X
85.0X
sd
6.45
6.45
4.79
4.08
Older
m
90.7ax
95.3abx
97.3bx
93 . oabx
sd
8.42
5.81
4.17
9.02
LHD
m
79.5a¥
82.5a¥
94.0bx
85.0^
sd
6.43
13.79
8.10
10.00
RHD
m
71.5acV
80.5abY
83.oby
63.5CZ
sd
12.7
8.96
12.95
15.47
x^z column means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
abc row means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha < .05

64
and Affect Matching. Thus, on direct tests of expression
processing the prosopagnosic was relatively unimpaired while
the RHD patients were relatively impaired. Figure 2-1
presents these findings graphically.
Occupational Stereotype Rating Test. The mean rating
for correct pairings and the mean rating for incorrect
pairings were submitted to a 4 (Group) x 2 (Condition)
mixed-block ANOVA for each test.4 (See Table 2-5 for
overall results of this analysis and Figure 2-2 for
graphical presentation.) For the Occupation Stereotype
Rating test there were significant main effects of Group (F
[3,45] = 3.68, p = .0188) and Condition (F [1,45] = 155.40,
p = .0001) but the Group by Condition interaction was not
significant (F [3,45] = 1.99, p = .1287). Post hoc testing
indicated that, as expected, the Correct condition was
yielded significantly larger values than the Incorrect
condition across groups indicating that all subjects were
able to discriminate the correct from incorrect pairings.
Additionally, the overall ratings for the Younger control
group were significantly higher than those for the Older
control group, but neither control group differed
significantly from the stroke groups. L.F.'s mean rating
for the Correct condition (5.38) was significantly lower
than that of the Younger control subjects (95% Cl: 6.05 to
4 One LHD patient was unable to complete the Occupation and
Personality Stereotype Rating tests because of comprehension
difficulties, and was not included in these analyses.

65
Subject Group
—— Young Controls
—Prosopagnosic
Old Controls
-B- LHD Patients
RHD Patients
Ficrure 2-1. Performance on the FFAT Affect Discrimination,
Naming, Selection, and Matching Subtests. * = RHD < LHD; #
= stroke patients < controls
8.83) while his mean rating for the Incorrect condition
fell within the 95% Cl for the Younger control group (95%
CIS 1.49 to 6.85). In fact, both of L.F.'s scores fell
within the 95% Cl for the Incorrect condition suggesting
that there was no significant difference between the two.
L.F. was assessed four times and t-tests comparing the
Correct to Incorrect condition were never significant (see
Table 2-6) at alpha < .05. Thus, only the prosopagnosic
showed impaired ability to extract occupational stereotype
information from unfamiliar faces.

66
Table 2-5
Simóle Effect and
Grand Mean
Ratinas for
the Occupational
Stereotype
Ratina
Test
Condition
Group
Group
Correct
Incorrect
Grand Mea:
Young
IQ
7.44x
4.17*
5.81a
sd
.65
1.25
1.93
L.F.
in
5.38*
4.83*
5.10
sd
.31
. 33
.42
Old
m
6.67
3.40
5.04b
sd
1.14
.75
1.93
LHD
m
7.08
4.37
5.73ab
sd
.91
.87
1.64
RHD
m
6.34
4.50
5.42ab
sd
1.43
1.23
1.60
Condition
Grand Mean
m
sd
6.92a
1.10
4.04°
1.12
Note. The interaction in this model was not significant at
alpha < .05.
ab main effect means with the same letter are not
significantly different
x* L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same letter
within a condition when L.F.'s score falls within the 95% Cl
for that condition
Personality Stereotype Rating Test. For the
Personality Rating test, the Group main effect was not
significant (F [3,45] = 2.14, p = .1081) but the Condition
main effect was significant (F [1,45] = 145.41, p = .0001);
the Group by Condition interaction approached significance
(F [3,45] = 2.56, p = .0670). Again, post hoc testing
indicated that the Correct condition was significantly

67
9
7
5
3
1
Figure 2-2. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Occupational Stereotype test.
higher than the Incorrect condition (see Table 2-7 and
Figure 2-3). L.F.'s scores (Correct = 6.13; Incorrect =
3.8) fell within the appropriate 95% Cl's for the Younger
control group (Correct: 4.40 to 8.86; Incorrect: 1.52 to
5.52). The t-tests comparing the Correct to Incorrect
condition for each of L.F.'s evaluations were significant
(see Table 2-6) a p < .05. Clearly then, all groups were
able to accurately derive personality information from
unfamiliar faces.
Identity Rating Test. For the Identity Rating test,
there was a significant Group by Condition interaction (F
[3,46] = 6.82, p = .0007). Evaluation of the interaction
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old
Subject Group
Condition
Correct Incorrect

68
Table 2-6
Results of t-Tests Comparing L.F.'s Ratings in the Correct
Versus Incorrect Conditions for Each of the Rating Tests
Occupational Stereotype Rating Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
E
.4193
.5001
.3501
.3278
mean
sd
mean
sd
1
2
3
4
5.10
5.40
5.80
5.20
(1.52)
(1.35)
(1.40)
(1.40)
4.50 (1.72)
5.00 (1.25)
5.20 (1.40)
4.60 (1.26)
.8268
.6882
.9594
1.0062
Personality Stereotype Rating Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
mean
sd
mean
sd
t
E
1
6.10
(0.74)
3.70
(1.34)
4.9685
.0002
2
5.70
(1.16)
3.90
(1.10)
3.5607
.0022
3
6.50
(1.84)
3.70
(1.06)
4.1689
.0009
4
6.20
(1.03)
3.90
(1.10)
4.8192
. 0001
Identity Ratina Test
Condition
Correct Incorrect
mean sd mean sd
t
E
1 4.88
(1.13)
4.29
(1.70)
.7782
.4542
2 4.50
(1.07)
3.71
(1.89)
.9723
.3558
3 5.63
(0.52)
5.00
(0.82)
1.7420
. 1124
4 5.63
(0.52)
4.43
(1.27)
2.3251
. 0498
indicated that there was a significant difference between
the correct and incorrect conditions within all the groups
(Younger: F [1,14] = 4784.75, p = .0001; Older: F [1,14] =
628.35, p = .0001; LHD: F [1,9] = 290.36, p = .0001; RHD:
F [1,9] = 48.17, p = .0001). Within the Correct condition,
the RHD patients were significantly lower than the two

69
Table 2-7
Simóle Effect and
Grand Mean
Ratinas for the
Personality
Stereotype
Ratincj
Test
Condition
Group
Group
Correct
Incorrect
Grand Mean
Young
in
6.63x
3.47x
5.05
sd
1.04
.91
1.87
L.F.
m
6.13*
3.80^
4.96
sd
.33
.12
1.26
Old
in
6.69
3.64
5.16
sd
. 69
.94
1.75
LHD
m
6.94
4.33
5.57
sd
.83
.99
1.61
RHD
in
6.11
4.50
5.31
sd
1.33
.91
1.38
Condition
Grand Mean
in
sd
6.60a
.99
3.90°
1.00
Note. Only the Condition main effect was significant
ab condition main effect means with the same letter are
significantly different at alpha < .05
xy when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition
control groups (F [3,46] = 4.35, p = .0089) but did not
differ from the LHD patients nor did the LHD patients differ
from the control subjects. Within the Incorrect condition,
the RHD patients were significantly higher than the
remaining groups (F [3,46] = 5.09, p = .0040) which did not
differ. These results indicate that while the RHD patients
were able to discriminate correct from incorrect face name
pairings, they did not do so as well as the other subjects

70
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old LHD RHD
Subject Group
Condition
I Correct
EWWN Incorrect
Figure 2-3. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Personality Stereotype test.
(see Table 2-8 and Figure 2-4). L.F.'s score for the
Correct condition (mean = 5.16) was less than the lower
limit of the 95% Cl for the Correct condition of the Younger
control group (8.34 to 9.36) and his score for the Incorrect
condition (mean = 4.36) was larger than the upper limit of
the 95% Cl for the Incorrect condition of the Younger
control group (.45 to 1.99). Of the t-tests comparing the
Correct to Incorrect condition for each of L.F.'s
evaluations, only one (#4) was significant (see Table 2-6)
at alpha < .05; given the number of analyses computed, an
alpha level of .0498 should be interpreted as non¬
significant. Thus, while the RHD patients had mild

difficulty recognizing famous faces, they could do so far
more accurately than the prosopagnosic.
71
Comparison of Ratings Test Difference Scores. When
difference scores (i.e., the difference between mean rating
for the Correct condition and mean rating for the Incorrect
condition) for
the
three rating
tests were
analyzed together
in a 4 (Group)
x 3
(Test) ANOVA
significant
Group (F [3,46]
Table 2-8
Simple Effect
and
Grand Mean Ratings for the Identity Rating
Test
Condition
Group
Correct Incorrect
Group
Grand Mean
Young
m
8.85ax
1.22bx
5.04
sd
.24
.36
3.89
L.F.
m
5.16z
4.36z
4.76
sd
.56
.53
.66
Old
in
8.55ax
1.46bx
5.00
sd
.52
.75
3.66
LHD
m
8.28axy
1.61bx
4.95
sd
.73
.64
3.49
RHD
m
7.67a¥
2.47b¥
5.07
sd
1.56
1.35
3.02
Condition
Grand Mean
m
8.41
1.62
sd
.91
.90
row means sharing these letters are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
xy column means sharing these letters are not significantly
different at alpha < .05
xz when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition

72
Mean Rating
Young Prosop Old LHO RHD
Subject Group
Condition
I Correct
E~\W\N Incorrect
Figure 2-4. Mean ratings for the Correct and Incorrect
conditions of the Direct Identity test.
= 5.69, p = .0021) and Test (F [2,90] = 191.54, p = .0001)
main effects were found without a significant interaction (F
[6,90] = .46, p = .8366). The REGWF1s indicated that the
RHD group was significantly worse at discriminating correct
versus incorrect pairings across all tests and that all
subjects were better at discriminating correct versus
incorrect face-name pairings on the Face Identity test than
on the Occupation and Personality tests. L.F. was
significantly impaired compared to his control group on both
the Occupation (L.F.'s score = .55; 95% Cl = .55 to 5.99)
and Identity Rating tests (L.F.'s score = .80; 95% Cl = 6.71
to 8.55). His difference score on the Personality Rating

73
Test (2.23) fell within the 95% Cl for the Younger Control
group (1.44 to 6.88). See Table 2-9 for means and standard
deviations. These findings show non task-specific
impairment in discriminating correct from incorrect pairings
for the RHD patients while the prosopagnosic's impairment is
specific to the occupation and identity tasks.
Summary of the Direct Task Results. It was
hypothesized in Chapter 1 that the RHD patients would be
Table 2-9
Mean Difference Scores for Rating Tests
Test
Group
Group
Occ
Pers
Iden
Grand Mean
Young
in
3.27x
3.17x
7.63x
4.69a
sd
1.27
1.73
.43
2.44
L.F.
m
.55^
2.33x
.80^
1.22
sd
. 10
.41
.28
.86
Old
IS
3.27
3.05
7.09
4.47a
sd
1.50
1.31
1.10
2.27
LHD
IS
2.71
2.69
6.67
4.12a
sd
1.27
1.50
1.24
2.32
RHD
IS
1.84
1.61
5.20
2.88b
sd
2.36
1.31
2.37
2.61
Test
Grand Mean
IS
2.87a
2.72a
6.79b
sd
1.66
1.58
1.57
ab main effect
means with
the same
letter are
not
significantly
different at
alpha <
. 05
when L.F. and the Younger Control group share the same
letter within a condition then L.F.'s score falls within the
95% Cl for that condition

74
relatively impaired on the expression and personality
stereotype tasks while the prosopagnosic would be impaired
on the identity and occupation stereotype tasks. As
hypothesized, the prosopagnosic was severely impaired in his
ability to gather identity and occupational stereotype
information from faces while performing normally on the
expression and personality stereotype tasks. On the other
hand, the RHD patients, while being impaired on the
expression task, performed normally on the three other
direct tasks including the personality stereotype task.
Tests of Indirect Access to Face Information
Face-Occupation Category Interference Test. For each
Indirect Test, RTs were submitted to a 4 (Group) by 3
(Condition) mixed-block ANOVA. For this test neither the
Condition main effect (F [2,92] = .25, p = .7757) nor the
Group by Condition interaction (F [6,92] = 1.23, p = .2980)
were significant. Only the Group main effect reached
significance (F [3,92] = 12.59, p = .0001). The post hoc
test indicated that the two stroke groups had significantly
longer overall RTs than did the control groups. L.F.'s
scores fell well within their respective 95% Cl's but there
was not a significant condition effect for the Younger
Control group, and L.F.'s Correct condition was his slowest.
Thus, it can be concluded that L.F. did not show an
interference effect. Table 2-10 shows means and standard
deviations for this test.

75
Table 2-10
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Occupation Category Interference Test
(Con = Congruent, Incon = Incongruente
Condition
Group
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Main Effect
Younger
1
905.8
907.7
931.2
914.9a
sd
149.7
159.2
173.4
157.8
L.F.
21
1001.6
1049.1
966.8
1005.8
sd
148.1
187.8
117.0
143.5
Older
21
940.0
925.8
928.5
931.4a
sd
249.6
221.4
235.1
220.8
LHD
m
1239.8
1239.5
1226.4
1235.2b
sd
271.3
182.5
222.3
220.3
RHD
2!
1346.2
1340.5
1280.6
1322.4b
sd
230.0
199.9
192.8
203.2
Condition
Main Effect m
1071.0
1066.1
1059.3
sd
286.9
264.4
249.8
Note. The
Condition
t main effect means
do not
include L.F.
scores.
Face-
Personality Descriptor Interference
Test. For
this test,
the Group
> (F [3,
92] = 21.00,
P = •
0001) and
Condition
(F [2,92]
= 31.69
, p = .0001)
main <
effects and
Group by Condition interaction (F [6,92] = 2.91, p = .0122)
were significant. Table 2-11 provides means and standard
deviations and Figure 2-5 presents the data graphically.
Because the interaction was significant, follow-ups on the
main effects were not calculated. Follow-up ANOVAs and
REGWFs were computed for each Group and Condition to
determine the source of the interaction. Within each group

76
Table 2-11
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Personality Descriptor Interference Test
(Con = Congruent, Incon = Incongruente
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Group
Main Effect
Younger
m
sd
972.7a
252.5
984.1a
248.3
1020.9b
260.2
992.6
248.8
L.F.
21
sd
1050.6
134.6
1021.5
116.5
1067.3
150.1
1046.5
123.2
Older
21
sd
977.3a
188.6
980.5a
217.3
1048.5b
235.1
1002.1
212.2
LHD
21
sd
1452.3a
274.1
1480.2a
321.4
1659.6b
403.0
1530.7
338.4
RHD
21
sd
1777.5ab
395.7
1654.8a
381.6
1844.5b
359.4
1758.9
374.5
Condition
Main Effect
21
sd
1231.0
426.7
1216.4
404.7
1321.6
467.3
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
a V»
row means with the same letter are not significantly
different at alpha = .05; comparisons among means without
letters were not evaluated.
there was a significant Condition effect (Younger: F [2,28]
= 5.09, p = .0130; Older: F [2,28] = 9.49, p = .0007; LHD:
F [2,18] = 18.88, p =.0001; RHD: F [2,18] = 5.73, p =
.0119). The post hoc REGWFs indicated that for the Younger
and Older Controls and the LHD patients the Congruent and
Control conditions did not differ, but the Incongruent
condition was significantly slower than the other two
conditions. For the RHD patients there was no difference

77
1850
1550
1250
950
Reaction Time (ms)
Young Prosop Old LHD
Subject Group
RHD
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-5. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Personality Descriptor
interference task.
between the Control and Incongruent conditions nor between
the Control and Congruent conditions, but the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions were different. The bottom line for
this analysis is that the Incongruent condition was
significantly slower than the Congruent condition for all
groups indicating that information provided by the face
interfered with the personality-related decision.
Within each condition there was a significant Group
effect at alpha = .0001 (Control: F [3,46] = 22.13;
Congruent: F [3,46] = 17.48; Incongruent: F [3,46] =
21.46). For all conditions, the two stroke groups were

78
significantly slower than the control groups. Because the
prosopagnosic1s RTs were, expectedly, much slower than those
of the Young controls, it made no sense to use confidence
intervals built around the control group's scores to
determine if L.F. performed normally. Instead, 95% CIs were
constructed around L.F.'s mean scores (which represent the
results of four testing sessions). For L.F. on this test,
the conditions, ordered from fastest to slowest, were:
Congruent (m = 1021.5; 95% Cl: 1017.9 to 1025.1), Control (m
= 1050.6; 95% Cl: 1047.0 to 1054.2), and Incongruent (m =
1067.3; 95% Cl: 1063.7 to 1070.9). Clearly, there is no
overlap of confidence intervals and the conditions are
ordered as hypothesized for a normal effect. Thus, like the
RHD patients, L.F. showed a normal interference effect on
this test.
Expression-Label Interference Test. For this test, the
Group (F [3,92] = 16.22) and Condition (F [3,92] = 8.22)
main effects were significant at alpha = .0001; the Group by
Condition interaction was not significant (F [6,92] = 0.75,
p = .6100). Table 2-12 shows means and standard deviations
for this test and Figure 2-6 shows the data graphically.
Post hoc testing indicated, again, that the stroke patients
had slower overall RTs than did the control subjects, while
the Incongruent condition was significantly slower than the
Congruent and Control conditions (which did not differ).
While the above results seem to suggest that the RHD
patients performed "normally" (i.e., the Incongruent

79
Table 2-12
Reaction Time (in milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Expression-Label Interference Test (Con =
Congruent, Incon = Incongruent)
Condition
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Group
Main Effect
Younger
21
634.8
638.7
654.3
642.6a
sd
110.4
102.8
123.3
110.2
L.F.
21
670.7
691.3
683.0
681.6
sd
29.6
27.4
22.9
25.8
Older
21
651.3
659.3
676.3
662.3a
sd
105.3
105.4
112.0
105.7
LHD
21
959.5
936.8
975.0
957.lb
sd
277.1
214.4
253.8
241.5
RHD
21
889.7
912.3
911.4
904.5b
sd
136.1
124.4
152.1
133.6
Condition
Main Effect
21
755.7a
759.2a
776.4°
sd
210.0
109.3
208.3
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
a K
main effect means with the same letter are not
significantly different at alpha = .05
condition was slower than the Congruent condition) on this
task, further analysis casts doubt on this interpretation.
When the Older control group and the two stroke groups were
analyzed independently, the Incongruent condition was
significantly slower that the other two conditions for the
control subjects (F [2,28] = 9.78, p = .0006) and approached
significance for the LHD patients (F [2,18] = 2.27, p =
.1318). However, the F-test was not even close for the RHD
patients (F [2,18] = .88, p = .4315). In fact, examination

80
Reaction Time (ms)
1000 I
Young Prosop Old LHD RHD
Subject Group
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-6. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Expression Label
interference task.
of the RHD means in Table 3-10 indicates the Congruent
condition was actually slower than the Incongruent condition
for this group. Thus, despite the finding of a Condition
main effect in the overall ANOVA, it appears that the RHD
patients did not show a normal interference effect on this
task and lack of statistical power cannot account for this
failure. Likewise, L.F. was slower on the Congruent than
Incongruent condition suggesting that he, too, was unable to
indirectly extract expression information from faces.
Face-Identity Interference Test. On this test, both
main effects and the interaction were significant (Group: F

81
[3,92] = 21.20, p = .0001; Condition: F [2,92] = 60.56, p =
.0001; Group by Condition: F [6,92] = 2.63, p = .0213).
Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that all groups showed a
significant Condition effect (Younger: F [2,28] = 9.83, p =
.0006; Older: F [2,28] = 14.89, p = .0001; LHD: F [2,18] =
13.81, p = .0002; RHD: F [2,18] = 22.55, p = .0001). The
ordering of Conditions was identical for all groups with the
Congruent being fastest and Incongruent slowest, and Control
in between (see Table 2-13 and Figure 2-7). However, for
Table 2-13
Reaction Time fin milliseconds) Means and Standard
Deviations for Face-Identity Interference Test [Con =
Congruent. Incon = Incongruente
Condition
Group
Group
Control
Con
Incon
Main Effect
Younger
m
962.4a
931.2a
1045.6b
979.8
sd
157.0
156.1
236.2
189.0
L.F.
21
1150.9
1203.0
1199.8
1184.5
sd
31.7
30.8
37.8
39.3
Older
21
1091.5a
997.8b
1155.6°
1081.6
sd
295.7
186.4
282.7
261.9
LHD
21
1513.9a
1427.6a
1668.8b
1536.8
sd
329.6
298.2
436.8
361.7
RHD
21
1633.3a
1394.3b
1785.6°
1604.4
sd
267.5
224.7
371.5
327.9
Condition
Grand Mean
21
sd
1245.6
377.2
1143.2
303.4
1351.3
445.6
Note. The Condition main effect means do not include L.F.'s
scores
abc
means within a column with the same letter are not
significantly different at alpha = .05

82
1800
1500
1200
900
Reaction Time (ms)
Young Prosop Old
Subject Group
LHD
RHD
Condition
Congruent Incongruent
Figure 2-7. Mean reaction times for the Congruent and
Incongruent conditions on the Face-Identity interference
task.
the Younger controls and LHD patients there was no
difference between the Congruent and Control conditions.
For the Older controls and RHD patients, all conditions were
significantly different. Within each condition the stroke
groups were again significantly slower than the control
groups (Control: F [3,46] = 21.36; Congruent: F [3,46] =
19.24; Incongruent: F [3,46] = 19.24) at alpha = .0001.
L.F.'s scores were ordered properly (i.e., Congruent faster
than Incongruent) and however the magnitude of the effect
was small compared to the Younger controls and relative to
his own and another prosopagnosic's performance on other

83
face-name interference tasks (DeHaan et al.. in press;
DeHaan et al., 1987) . Thus it seems that the prosopagnosic
alone failed to demonstrate a normal interference effect on
this task despite having demonstrated implicit recognition
of facial identity in several other studies (Bauer, 1984;
Greve & Bauer, 1990; DeHaan et al.. in press). Issues
related to his apparent failure on this task and the
expression interference task will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Summary of Indirect Task Results. In summary, all
groups failed to show an interference effect on the
Occupation task while strong effects were observed for all
groups on the Personality task. The prosopagnosic failed to
show an interference effect on the Identity task, while the
other groups performed normal. This finding is in contrast
to that of DeHaan et al.1s (in press) who showed an
interference effect with this patient; it is also in
contrast to several other studies which have demonstrated
implicit recognition of facial identity in prosopagnosia.
On the Expression task, the RHD patients and the
prosopagnosic failed to show sensitivity to the expression
information provided by the faces. The implications of this
finding are discussed in the following chapter.
Individual Performance on Expression Tasks
The group data indicate associated impairments on the
direct and indirect expression tasks for the RHD patients.
The failure of the RHD patients on both types of tasks has

84
important implications for our understanding of the emotion
processing defect in these patients. However, as Shallice
(1988) warns, associations of deficits in groups may not
represent the performance of the individual subjects within
the group (e.g., if half the group is high on variable and
low on the other, while the other half has the reverse
pattern, the group will be down on both variables without
any one subject being down on both). To address this issue
this section examines the pattern of individual results for
the Older control and both stroke patient groups on each of
the direct affects tests and the Expression-label
interference task. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals
were constructed based on the Older control group mean
scores for each direct expression test and any stroke
patient falling below the lower limit was considered to have
failed that test. For the indirect expression task, if the
response latency for the Congruent condition was at all
longer than the Incongruent condition (i.e., Incongruent -
Congruent < 0) then performance was considered impaired.
Using this criteria there is some risk that small difference
may reflect chance variation, however, with the exception of
three patients (two LHD, one RHD), all subjects had
difference scores larger than +25ms which allows for little
ambiguity since this is much larger than the group
difference between conditions. Thus, all but three patients
either clearly showed a normal interference effect or they
did not. Table 2-14 shows the performances of all the

85
stroke patients on all expression tasks ('+' = unimpaired;
'= impaired) and includes the Incongruent-Congruent
difference score for each patient. Table 2-15 presents the
association between performances on each direct expression
test and the indirect expression task for the two stroke
groups.
Tale 2-14
Performance of Stroke Patients on Direct and Indirect
Expression Tasks (' + ' = normal or unimpaired; 1 -1 =
impaired)
Left Hemisphere Disease Patients
Pt.
Discrim
FFAT Subtests
Naming Select
Match
Expression-
Interfere
-Label
RT Diff
LI
+
+
+
+
+
49.5
L2
+
-
-
+
+
45.3
L3
-
+
+
+
+
91.8
L4
+
-
-
+
+
42.8
L5
+
—
+
+
+
65.4
L6
+
+
+
+
_
-25.9
L7
+
+
+
+
+
9.5
L8
+
+
+
+
+
139.4
L9
+
-
+
+
-
-42.1
L10
-
-
+
-
+
5.8
Right Hemisphere Disease Patients
Pt.
Discrim
FFAT Subtests
Naming Select
Match
Expression-
Interfere
-Label
RT Diff
R1
+
+
+
+
_
-31.5
R2
+
-
+
-
+
38.0
R3
-
-
-
-
-
-26.1
R4
-
-
-
-
+
73.4
R5
—
—
—
—
—
-73.5
R6
+
-
—
—
+
26.4
R7
+
+
+
+
-
-18.1
R8
+
-
-
-
-
-27.7
R9
-
+
-
-
+
42.3
RIO
+
-
+
-
-
-11.7

Examination of table 2-15 shows that, with the
exception of Affect Naming, the individual LHD patients
86
where mostly unimpaired. The difficulty demonstrated by the
LHD patients most likely reflects a general anomia resulting
from their left hemisphere lesion and not a naming defect
specific to affect, though this was not formally evaluated.
What is important, however, is that almost all the LHD
patients showed an interference effect, even if they failed
a direct test. Failure on the interference task occurred in
only two LHD patients and they where unimpaired on the
direct affect tests (one patient did show a naming defect).
Normal performance on a direct task in association with
impaired performance on an indirect task runs counter to the
hypotheses, however, the rate of this occurring did not
differ much across groups and may reflect both varying
direct task demands and normal variation on the indirect
tasks. Two findings from the LHD patients are important.
First, almost all LHD patients performed normally on both
the direct and indirect expression tasks. Second, among
those LHD patients who failed a direct test, almost all
performed normally on the indirect task.
Among the RHD patients, the situation is quite
different. First, with the exception of the Affect
Discrimination subtest, the RHD patients mostly failed the
direct expression tests. In fact, six RHD patients failed
three of the four subtests compared to on two of the LHD
patients. Thus, the individual findings support the

87
Table 2-15
Association of Stroke Patient Performance on Each FFAT
Subtest with Performance on the Expression-Label
Interference Task
LHD Patients
RHD Patients
FFAT Subtest
Discrimination
Expression-Label
+
Expression-Label
+
8 2
4 6
+
Naming
8 2
4 6
+
Selection
8 2
4 6
+
Matching
8
2
4
6

88
contention that the RHD patients are, on the whole, more
impaired on direct expression processing than the LHD
patients. Given the general failure of the RHD patients on
the direct expression tasks, how did those who failed direct
tasks perform on the indirect task? Results show that half
the patients with direct test failures showed a normal
interference effect while the other half did not. Of the
subjects who showed a normal interference effect, one passed
two subtests (discrimination, selection), two passed one
subtest (one discrimination, one naming), and one passed no
subtests. What this means is that half the RHD patients
with impairment on direct expression tasks showed indirect
access to the expression representations. In other words,
the expression representations were clearly intact in some
RHD patients. This is in marked contrast to the group
results which imply that all the RHD patients failed to show
an interference effect.

CHAPTER 3
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Summary
Considerable information can be derived from the
examination of the human face and much is known about the
cognitive processes involved in facial expression analysis
and identity recognition. Much of our knowledge about
these processes has come from the study of prosopagnosics
and persons with unilateral lesions of the cerebral
cortex. Information upon which stereotype attributions
about a person are based can also be derived from faces,
but little is known about the cognitive processes
underlying these abilities. The purpose of the study just
described was to evaluate the performance of normal
control subjects, unilateral stroke patients, and a
prosopagnosic on tasks tapping their ability to derive
information about identity, facial expression, and
personality and occupational stereotypes from faces.
Based on what was known about facial identity and
expression processing, the model presented in Figure 3-1
was hypothesized to describe the relationships among the
processes involved in the extraction of identity,
expression, and stereotype information from faces. This
89

90
Figure 3-1. Model of face processing hypothesized in
Chapter 1.

91
model suggests that occupational stereotype identification
is based primarily on information derived from the
identity recognition process. It also suggests that
information processed within the expression analysis
system is the primary basis of personality stereotype
identification. If this model is accurate, people with an
expression processing defect (e.g., RHD) should also be
relatively impaired in categorizing faces in terms of
personality while remaining unimpaired on tests of
identity recognition and occupational stereotype judgment.
In contrast, the prosopagnosic, who is unable to recognize
identity, should show the opposite effect. What
inferences can be drawn from the observed data? (See
Table 3-1 for a summary of the results.)
All subjects, except the prosopagnosic, performed
normally on the direct Identity task. Similarly, the RHD
patients (individually and as a group) had more difficulty
on the Expression tasks than did L.F., our prosopagnosic,
or the LHD patients. This finding represents a classical
double dissociation (Shallice, 1988) between identity and
expression processing abilities in that the performance of
the RHD patients on the identity task was in the normal
range while their performance on the FFAT subtests was
generally impaired. Normal performance on the direct
identity test was associated with impaired performance on
Affect Discrimination by three patients, Affect Naming by
five patients, Affect Selection by four patients, and

92
Affect Matching by six patients. The reverse was seen for
the prosopagnosic for all four testing sessions (though he
was impaired on the first administration of Affect
Naming). That only the prosopagnosic was impaired on the
direct Occupational Stereotype task is also consistent
with this model (although the model does not provide the
only possible explanation). However, the fact that all
groups performed normally on the direct Personality
Stereotype task suggests that the relationships among the
different domains of face processing are more complex than
originally thought. The observed pattern of direct test
outcomes suggests that neither disruption of the identity
nor the expression processing systems caused a disruption
of the ability to make personality stereotype
attributions.
Table 3-1
Observed Results of Direct Tests
Subjects
Normal
LHD
RHD
PA
Type of Test
Identity Expression Personality
+ + +
+ + +
+ - +
+ +
Occupation
+
+
+
Note. LHD = left hemisphere disease patients; RHD = right
hemisphere disease patients; PA = prosopagnosia.

93
A similar pattern of performance was seen on the
indirect tasks. Again, only the prosopagnosic failed to
show an interference effect on the indirect identity task.
This finding is surprising in light of the fact that he
showed normal implicit recognition of famous faces in two
other studies (Bauer, 1984; DeHaan et al.. in press).
Additionally, while unimpaired on the FFAT, he also failed
to show an interference effect on the expression task.
This raises the question of whether his normal performance
on the FFAT is the result of normal expression processing
and/or whether problems existed with the indirect task
itself. These questions will be addressed in a later
section. The normal performance of some of the RHD
patients on the indirect expression task indicates that in
at least a subset of such patients the expression
representations are intact but not consciously available.
However, some of the RHD patients who were impaired on the
FFAT failed to show an interference effect on the indirect
expression test. This observation has important
implications concerning the functional pathology
underlying their expression processing deficits. The
finding that all groups performed normally on the indirect
personality task is consistent with their overall normal
performance on the direct personality test. Finally, the
lack of an interference effect on the indirect Occupation
task for all groups probably raises more questions about
the adequacy of that particular task than about the

cognitive processing system underlying the ability to
extract occupational stereotype information from faces.
94
Table 3-2
Observed Results of Indirect Tests
Subjects
Normal
LHD
RHD
PA
Type of Test
Identity Expression Personality Occupation
+ + +
+ + +
+ - +
Note. LHD = left hemisphere disease patients; RHD = right
hemisphere disease patients; PA = prosopagnosia.
1 L.F. actually failed to show a normal interference
effect on this task however, evidence, which is discussed
below, suggests that he does show implicit identity
recognition and that inadequacies of the task lead to his
failure in this study.
Discussion
Performance impairment on various tasks have
important implications for our understanding of
pathological cognitive processing, especially when the
defects are associated with other forms of preserved
function. For example, the failure of prosopagnosics on
direct face identity tasks in the context of spared
performance on indirect identity tasks indicates that the
face identity representations (FRU's and Identity-specific
Semantic Codes) are intact but cannot be consciously

95
accessed (DeHaan et al., 1986). Similar evidence of
indirect access to various types of information (memory
representations, see Schacter, 1987, for a review; word
meaning, Milberg & Blumstein, 1981; Blumstein, Milberg, &
Shrier, 1982) has generally been interpreted to mean that
the relevant representations are intact but consciously
unavailable. The bottom line is that impairment on a
direct task in the context of spared performance on an
indirect task means that the underlying memory
representations are intact. How then should failure on an
indirect task be interpreted?
It is possible that the interference test methodology
in general is insensitive to the information provided by
the faces. However, since the hypothesized patterns of
performance were observed on several of the interference
tasks in this study and in two of DeHaan's studies (DeHaan
et al.. 1986; DeHaan et al.. in press) with two different
prosopagnosics this explanation cannot account for the
observed findings. These findings include the impairment
of the a subset of RHD patients on both direct and
indirect expression tasks and the failure of L.F. on both
identity tasks and the indirect expression task. These
data may indicate that the relevant memory representations
have been disrupted, but other factors must be ruled out
before this conclusion is viable.

96
Identity Processing
It appears that the failure of L.F. on the indirect
identity task is the result of an interaction between the
short-comings of the specific task and his visual
processing defect rather than a loss of the face
representations. L.F. has consistently demonstrated
spared implicit recognition of familiar faces using both
autonomic (Guilty Knowledge Test [GKT]; Bauer, 1984) and
behavioral measures (face-name interference; DeHaan et
al.. in press) thus indicating that his memory
representations of familiar faces are intact. The
indirect identity task alone is not inadequate since both
normal control and stroke groups performed normally on it.
Additionally, L.F. did perform normally on this type of
paradigm, showing a strong interference effect on the
indirect personality stereotype task. Thus it seems that
L.F.'s failure on this task reflects an interaction
between the defect which causes his direct identity
recognition failure and some aspect of the indirect
identity task itself.
Careful examination of the indirect identity task
suggests two possible short-comings: 1) insufficient time
may have been allowed for L.F. to process the faces before
the target name appeared (DeHaan et al.. in press, allowed
for an 85ms interval between face and name); or, 2) the
faces and/or names may not have been clear representatives
of their respective occupational categories. Insufficient

97
processing time seems unlikely to account for the observed
failure since L.F. performed normally on the Personality
Stereotype interference task which used the same temporal
parameters. On the other hand, some of the faces were
empirically ambiguous as to occupational category. For
example, response errors and longer RTs were consistently
observed for Barbara Walters and Martin Luther King.
Additionally, the faces of the persons named in the
Incongruent Condition were not used in this experiment.
In contrast, in DeHaan et al.1s (in press) second
experiment, if the face of Richard Nixon was paired with
Paul Newman's name in the Incongruent Condition, then
another incongruent item would feature Paul Newman's faces
with Richard Nixon's name.
Strong exemplars of a particular semantic class who
have few strong associations to other semantic classes are
important since the interference paradigm seems unable to
discriminate identity beyond semantic class to specific
name. Recall that DeHaan et al. (1986, in press) paired a
face with its own name (Same condition), a different name
from the same semantic category (Related condition), and a
name from a different semantic category (Different
condition). Reaction times were unable to discriminate
between the Same and Related conditions. However, the
Same and Related conditions are faster than Different
conditions). Thus it is possible that the presence of
weak exemplars of the politician and nonpolitician

98
categories may have interacted with L.F.'s face processing
defect to produce impaired performance.
Expression Processing
Right hemisphere disease. Just as the failure of
L.F. on the indirect identity task did not necessarily
indicate that the identity representations were destroyed,
the conclusion that the expression representations are
damaged or destroyed in RHD and prosopagnosia is not
tenable until a number of alternative explanations have
been ruled out. Included among these alternative
explanations are the possibility that the test itself was
somehow inadequate, that the observed impairment is a
general effect of brain damage, and that a visuoperceptual
disturbance caused the impairment. Since normals are
clearly able make complex judgements about even subtle
emotional expressions and only the RHD patients and
prosopagnosic failed to show a normal interference effect
on this task, it seems likely that this ability was tested
adequately by the interference task. Likewise, it seems
apparent that impairment on this test is not a general
effect of brain damage since the LHD patients performed
normally.
The most important factor to be ruled out in the case
of this test is the role of disrupted visuoperceptual
processing since visuoperceptual disturbance is a common
finding after right hemisphere stroke (Benton, 1985). In

99
fact, our RHD patients were significantly impaired
relative to the controls and the LHD patients on the
Milner Facial Recognition Test, the Benton Test of Facial
Recognition, and the Identity Discrimination subtest
(subtest 1) of the FFAT. They also were impaired relative
to the LHD patients on Subtests 4 (Facial Affect
Selection) and 5 (Facial Affect Matching) of the FFAT and
failed to show an interference effect on the indirect
expression task.
However, for the individual RHD patients, perceptual
dysfunction, as indicated by "impaired" performance on at
least two of the three face memory and perception tasks
(Milner, Benton, FFAT Identity Discrimination), did not
predict failure to show a normal interference effect. In
fact, of the seven RHD patients with visuoperceptual
defects, four showed a normal interference effect; in
contrast, of the three RHD patients without such defects,
all showed no interference effect. Thus, visuoperceptual
dysfunction was not associated with impairment on the
indirect expression task for individual patients.
Further, there is no a priori reason to expect that
visuoperceptual problems would specifically impair
expression processing without also impairing performance
on other visual tasks. In fact, the RHD patients did show
such a generalized effect in that their performance on the
direct tasks was consistently poorer than the LHD
patients. However, they still were able to discriminate

100
correct from incorrect pairings and performed normally on
two of the interference tasks. Thus it is unlikely that
visuoperceptual dysfunction can fully account for the
expression processing impairment of the RHD patients.
Further evidence arguing against explaining the right
hemisphere affective processing defect in terms of
visuoperceptual dysfunction is provided in two studies by
Bowers and her colleagues (Blonder et al.. 1991; Bowers,
Blonder, & Heilman, in press). In the first study,
Blonder et al. (1991) demonstrated that RHD patients who
were impaired on tasks of emotional facial expression and
verbal prosody comprehension were impaired on tasks which
required them to comprehend nonverbal expression of
emotion when communicated by verbal descriptions (e.g.,
"He scowled;" "She smiled;" "Tears fell from her eyes").
In contrast, the RHD patients were unimpaired relative to
LHD patients on a task requiring them to infer emotional
meaning from situations linked to specific emotions (e.g.,
"You were delighted by the bonus;" "It was the third
anniversary of the death of your child;" "Your house seems
empty without her"). This task differed from the previous
one in that no descriptions of facial, gestural, or
prosodic signals were provided. In interpreting their
findings, the authors state "this impairment is not
reducible to a RH mediated defect in processing the
specialized acoustic and visuospatial properties of
nonverbal stimuli [and] is not reflective of RH

101
specialization in the ability to interpret the emotional
significance of events" (Blonder et al. . 1991; pp. 1124).
In the second study (Bowers et al., in press), RHD
and LHD patients and normal controls completed two visual
imagery tasks. In the first task (Imagery for Emotional
Facial Expressions), the subjects were asked to imagine
they were looking at someone displaying each of four
target emotions (happy, sad, angry, frightened). They
were then asked eight "yes/no" questions about appearance
of each imagined face (e.g., for frightened: "Do the eyes
look twinkly?" "Is the brow raised?" "Are the eyes opened
wide?"). In the second task (Object Imagery), the
subjects were asked questions about the visual
characteristics of objects, animals, and people for which
it is assumed they must generate an image of the target
(e.g., "What's higher off the ground, a horse's knee or
the top of its tail?" "Is a date on a penny toward the top
or the bottom?"). The results indicated that the RHD
patients were impaired relative to the LHD patients on the
Emotional Imagery task, while the LHD patients were
impaired relative to the RHD patients on the Object
Imagery task. The implication of both of these studies is
that RHD patients are impaired on tasks involving
emotional processing even when no afferent perceptual
input is involved. This constitutes good evidence against
the argument that the emotional processing defect seen in
RHD patients is the result of visuoperceptual impairment.

102
Thus, significant circumstantial evidence exists to
support the tentative conclusion that in a subset of RHD
patients the representations which underlie normal
emotional processing are functionally unavailable. While
the failure of the RHD patients on the various affect
imagery tasks lends support to the argument that the
expression representations are damaged or destroyed, it
remains conceivable that indirect tasks using a different
methodology might demonstrate spared implicit access to
the expression representations. Thus, it will be
critically important that future research involve multiple
indirect tasks using diverse methodologies. Finally, some
RHD patients, however, have lost conscious access to
otherwise intact expression representations as indicated
by their normal performance on the indirect expression
task.
Prosopagnosia. It is unlikely, however, that L.F.'s
failure can simply be attributed to right hemisphere
damage since the RHD patients tend to be globally impaired
at accessing the expression representations via visual,
auditory, imagery or inferential processes while L.F.
shows spared emotional processing on a variety of tasks.
The fact that his failure on the indirect identity task is
due in part to the its apparent inadequacies raises
questions about the adequacy of the indirect expression
task. Is it possible that his failure on the indirect
expression task is also a reflection of an interaction

between his face processing defect and some specific
inadequacy of the test?
103
The indirect expression task differed from the other
three indirect tasks in that the subjects were asked to
read the expression label rather than make a decision
about it. This may have been a weakness. When a subject
must decide whether a name is that of a politician or
nonpolitician she/he must activate the memorial
representations associated with that name; if a photograph
preceding the presentation of that name has activated a
different set of representations then the photograph-
related activation must be overcome before a correct
decision regarding the name can be produced. As a result,
the response time is slower than when the face and name
activate the same set of representations. In the
expression interference task, the presentation of a face
should activate a particular facial expression
representation and information associated with it in
semantic memory but the question arises as to whether
semantic information associated with that representation
needs to be accessed to read the emotion word which
follows.
Reading based on grapheme-phoneme conversion rules
does not require access to the semantic system (Ratcliff
and Newcombe, 1982) so it is theoretically possible to
read the presented emotion word without having to access
the expression representations; in fact, word reading can

104
take place without comprehension (Ellis & Young, 1989).
As a result the activation of the expression
representations would have no effect on the speed with
which the word was read. In normals, presentation of a
word may automatically cause access to the semantic system
so that any activation occurring within it may impact
reading time. However, because access to the semantic
system is only one route to reading, the impact of the
activation would be less than if the response was forced
entirely through the semantic system; as a result
interference effects would be smaller. This is precisely
what was observed. For the Identity interference task the
magnitude of the interference effect for the subjects
showing a normal effect was approximately 175ms. For the
Expression interference task the average interference
effect for those groups showing a normal effect was
approximately 17ms. What these observations suggest is
that L.F. either does not automatically access the
semantic system and/or the activation of the expression
representations is insufficient to affect response time
when the effects of such activation are measured through
reading speed.
L.F.'s failures on the indirect identity and
expression tasks appear to be due to an interaction
between task-related variables and his face processing
defect. The possible task-related factors involved in
L.F.'s failures have been described. What is the nature

105
of the prosopagnosic defect with which they interacted?
Bauer and Trobe have argued that L.F. "verbally tagged"
unique attributes of objects so as to identify them ("a
long metal blade = knife;" p. 43) but noted that
prosopagnosics have difficulty using this strategy to
identify faces because "faces are so meaningful in
everyday life and because making distinctions between them
is such an exquisitely nonverbal task" (p. 43).
Levine and Calvanio (1989) convincingly argue that
"the perceptual and memory defects [in prosopagnosia] are
not distinct impairments in different stages of visual
recognition but instead are two aspects of the same
underlying disorder, which we call defective visual
'configural' processing" (p. 151). They concluded that
their prosopagnosic cannot "identify by getting an
overview of an item as a whole in a single glance" (p.
159) and echo Bauer and Trobe (1984) in their report that
"most often, the reason for his [L.F.'s] success is that a
single detail or contour is sufficient to specify the
object's identity . . . visual identification has become a
'logical process rather than a visual one"' (p. 160). For
example, when a familiar face possesses a distinctive
feature (e.g., Bob Hope's nose, Richard Nixon's jowls)
that feature may communicate enough unique information to
produce a sense of "inferential knowing." This is a sense
of "based on my calculations this must be true" as opposed
to "I feel in my gut that this is true."
L.F. is able to

106
reliably recognize the same photographs of Bob Hope and
Muhammed Ali because the mouths are distinctive. But he
is never very confident about his identifications of these
two faces and he can't recognize them from other
photographs. Clearly, because faces of different people
differ in such subtle ways, identity discrimination which
attempts to use distinctive features usually fails.
However, facial information that is more amenable to
a feature-based type of analysis is better communicated
and more accurately interpreted. There appear to be a
limited number of prototypical facial expressions and
these are characterized by unique and distinctive
features. The study of Blonder et al. (1991) clearly
suggests that normals can infer affective state based on
verbal descriptions of salient features. It appears that
facial expression can be accurately inferred based on the
limited information provided by discrete features.
Consequently, it makes sense that a prosopagnosic should
be able to perform normally on direct expression tasks and
with normal latencies (which we observed with L.F.).
Summary
This study has resulted in several conclusions
regarding the face processing abilities of RHD patients
and prosopagnosics and about the functional pathologies
underlying their face processing defects. First, in some
RHD cases damage to the Expression Analysis system has

107
resulted in a disruption of conscious access to otherwise
intact expression representations. There does exist
another subset of RHD cases who seem unable to either
directly or indirectly access the expression
representations. It is possible that the representations
themselves have been disrupted or the expression
processing system has been damaged such as to make the
representations themselves useless.
Second, prosopagnosia appears to be the result of
impairment at some level of structural encoding such that
visual information is processed in terms of salient,
unique, or distinctive features (i.e., in piecemeal
fashion). The information communicated in that way is
unable to activate the Face Recognition Units and may be
unable to normally access the Expression Analysis system.
However, whether or not that is true depends on which
•'descriptions" are disrupted. If disruption occurs at an
early stage of structural encoding then the viewer-center
descriptions (Bruce & Young, 1986; Marr, 1982), which
describe the surface layout of the face, then abnormal
processing of identity and expression are likely. If the
impairment occurs later in the process and disrupts the
construction of the more abstract structural codes then
expression processing may well proceed normally. L.F.'s
performance on the indirect expression task suggests that
he is not processing expression normally and implicates
disruption at an early stage of structural encoding.

108
Stereotype Processing
Having discussed at length the effects of
prosopagnosia and RHD on identity and expression
processing let us now return to the central question:
What is the relationship of facial stereotype recognition
to expression and identity processing? It was
hypothesized that occupational stereotype recognition was
based primarily on information derived from faces through
the identity processing system while personality
stereotype recognition was based on information from
expression analysis. In the following sections the
relationships of occupational stereotype and personality
recognition to expression and identity processing will be
examined.
Occupational Stereotypes. The most straight-forward
inference is based on the classical dissociation between
performance on the direct occupational stereotype task and
the direct expression tests in prosopagnosia. There is
evidence of the reverse dissociation among the RHD
patients as a group, but only three individual patients
showed it. There is also evidence that impaired
visuoperceptual processing was associated with poor
performance on this task among the RHD patients in that
six of eight patients who were perceptually impaired
failed to perform normally on the direct occupational
stereotype task. However, the data indicate that the
ability to categorized faces in terms of apparent

109
occupational category is not related to the ability to
recognize facial expression. This suggests that
expression information contributes little if any of the
information to the Visually-derived Semantic Codes upon
which occupational stereotype decisions are based.
Extending the observed dissociations to the indirect
occupation and expression tasks would have strengthened
the above conclusion. Unfortunately, not only did L.F.
not show a normal interference effect on the indirect
occupational stereotype task, none of the groups did. The
failure of all subjects on this task appears to reflect a
problem with this specific test since normals are clearly
able to extract this type of information from faces. As
discussed in Chapter 1, Klatzky et al. (1982b)
demonstrated that normals can both directly and indirectly
derive occupational stereotype information from faces.
Her tasks were constructed using stimuli from the same
preliminary study. Why did we fail to show an effect
since we showed a direct effect and the stimuli came from
the same source for both tasks. Klatzky used the exact
occupational category labels generated in the preliminary
study in both tasks. In our preliminary study we had one
category called "athlete11 and this was used in the direct
task. However, on the indirect task, the faces
categorized as athletes were arbitrarily subcategorized as
either "shortstop" or "quarterback," two categories which
were never empirically related to any faces. Thus it was

110
not known whether these categories were represented by
easily imageable stereotypic faces and, if they were,
whether the faces categorized as general athletes were
exemplars of these categories. Conseguently, while the
category "athlete" may have been activated by a face, the
subcategories may have been insufficiently activated to
produce an effect. As a result, none of the groups showed
any effect on this task.
An alternative to the conclusion that some aspect of
the task was flawed is that, in fact, unfamiliar faces are
not automatically processed in terms of apparent
occupational category and that more direct, conscious
processing is required to categorize faces on this basis.
The question then arises as to why this conclusion does
not seem to apply to Klatzky's study. It is possible that
because Klatzky retained external facial features (e.g.,
hair) the faces were actually stronger exemplars than
those used in this study. However, ratings of the
occupational stereotype exemplars used in this study were
relatively higher (i.e., they were stronger exemplars)
than were the personality stereotype exemplars (which also
lacked external features), yet strong effects were
demonstrated in indirect personality test. Why would
unfamiliar faces be automatically processed in terms of
apparent personality yet not in terms of apparent

Ill
occupation?5 While this possibility is not an untenable
explanation of the failure of all subjects on the indirect
occupational stereotype task and is a hypothesis worthy of
examination in the future, the present findings seem to
better support the idea that the task itself contained a
flaw that resulted in its general insensitivity to the
apparent occupational category membership of the faces.
Personality Stereotypes. All groups performed
normally on both personality stereotype tasks. The
finding of a dissociation between performance on the
personality stereotype test and occupational stereotype
test by L.F. and the dissociation between the performance
of the RHD patients on the personality stereotype test and
the expression tests seems to suggest that personality
stereotype recognition may be a function of a face
subsystem that is independent of the expression and
identity processing subsystems. RHD should result in
impaired personality stereotype recognition if access to
expression information is required, while prosopagnosia
should cause impairment if access to identity information
is needed. An argument can be made for a three-subsystem
model of face processing in which personality stereotypes
are processed via an independent system, but a two-
subsystem model is more parsimonious and more
5 It is possible that "personality” information revealed
by faces have sufficient validity in naturalistic settings
that the ability to make inferences from such information
has adaptive value. While occupation information may not
be so relevant to an organism's survival.

112
evolutionarily sound (it is hard to imagine why a
personality stereotype processing system would have
evolved independently). If this is true, what two
subsystem model might account for the observed data?
If the Visually-derived Semantic Codes for
personality stereotypes are based on expression
information and yet are themselves outside the expression
system, then normal indirect personality stereotype test
performance would be expected for the RHD patients since
the representations are intact. Additionally, the RHD
patients might have normal direct personality test
performance despite impaired direct expression task
performance because, according to Bruce and Young (1986),
unfamiliar faces have direct access to Visually-derived
Semantic Codes including those that may have been created
with information from a now dysfunctional system (i.e.,
the expression system).
Two alternative explanations exist. The first
suggests that RHD patients are unable to use expression
information to categorize faces in terms of personality
traits. However, as Secord (1958) and Thornton (1943)
pointed out, facial expression is only one type of data
that contributes to judgements about personality
characteristics. Thus, it may be that the remainder of
the information is sufficient for the RHD patients to make
accurate inferences. Conversely, L.F. may use the
expression information when he performs the direct

113
personality stereotype test while being insensitive to the
nonexpression information. Since the Visually-derived
Semantic Codes on which personality stereotype inferences
are based should be intact, as are the famous face
representations, he would perform normally on the indirect
task.
The second alternative is that expression information
is very important for personality stereotype attributions
but that the direct test is too easy. On identity tests,
L.F. has never performed above chance level and never has
any confidence in his correct decisions. However, the RHD
patients show considerable variability across subjects in
their degree of impairment on expression tests yet even
the most impaired still perform well above chance. Thus,
while even an easy test may be impossible for a
prosopagnosic if he has to extract "identity-like"
information, the RHD patients are not equally impaired on
expression-related tasks and so perform normally when an
expression-related task is relatively easy. (see, for
instance, the performance of the RHD patients on the
Affect Discrimination subtest.)
Thus, any firm conclusions regarding the contribution
of expression information to personality stereotype
processing must await data from a more challenging direct
personality stereotype task, at the least. However, it
seems apparent that identity information is not required
for accurate personality stereotype inferences. It also

114
seems that a two-subsystem model is sufficient to explain
the data from this study and that it is unnecessary to
propose a separate system for extracting personality
stereotype information from faces. It should be remember
that the fact that a two-system model can explain the
observed results does not mean that more than two systems
do not exist.
Conclusions
The primary purpose of this study was to ascertain
the source of face information which contributes to the
creation of particular types of Visually-derived Semantic
Codes. It was hypothesized that the information upon
which occupational stereotypes are based arises
predominantly from processing of faces within the identity
system. Conversely, it was suggested that personality
stereotype attributions were based on information
processed within the expression system. Since no
impairment was seen on either personality stereotype task,
even among the RHD patients and L.F., no conclusions could
be drawn concerning the contributions of the identity and
expression systems to personality stereotype attributions.
However, it was concluded that an independent "personality
stereotype processing system" need not be posited based on
the data.
It was inferred that facial expression information
does not play an important role in the ability to

115
categorize faces in terms of apparent occupational
category. Based on this, it appears that the expression
processing system does not contribute significant
information to the construction of the Visually-Derived
Semantic Codes underlying the ability to extract
occupational stereotype information from unfamiliar faces.
The contribution of the identity system to these codes is
harder to determine. It is entirely possible that
occupational stereotype information is processed by its
own independent system and we have no empirical basis to
argue against this. However, as with personality
stereotypes, it is hard to imagine why such a system would
have evolved independently. On the other hand, the
information which goes into occupational stereotype
attributions may have some form of adaptive significance
but we are misled by the present label (i.e., occupational
stereotype). What is clear is that identity processing
and occupational stereotype processing share something in
common because they are both disrupted in prosopagnosia.
Whether both types of information are processed in one
system or whether they share common input from structural
encoding is not known.
Another question addressed in this study concerned
the pathology underlying the affective processing defect
seen frequently in RHD. The failure of some RHD patients
to show a normal interference effect on the indirect
expression task suggests that the expression

116
representations are functionally disrupted. While, normal
indirect expression task performance in others indicated
that those patients have lost conscious access to intact
expression representations.
Finally, it was argued, in accordance with Bauer and
Trobe (1984) and Levine and Calvanio (1989), that
associative prosopagnosia (see Chapter 1) is the result of
impaired visual "configural" processing and the residual
feature-based, piecemeal perception. Since the impairment
of visual configural processing in prosopagnosia is not
specific to faces, the question arises as to the
contribution of prosopagnosia research to our
understanding of face processing. In many ways face
identity recognition is similar to object recognition
(Young, Hay, & Ellis, 1986). Despite this, face identity
recognition still almost always requires the ability to
make subtle discriminations among elements of a rather
homogenous group. This is rarely true in object
recognition in which between-group discriminations are
almost always sufficient. Consequently, prosopagnosia can
potentially tell us about the information and abilities
required to make such discriminations. For example, we
know that face identity recognition requires the ability
to appreciate the facial stimulus as a whole, not simply a
sequential collection of features. This knowledge may
cause us to pursue the perceptual processes involved in
creating that organic whole.

117
Future Directions
This study failed to determine the relationship of
personality stereotype information to expression and/or
identity processing. As noted in a previous section, the
use of a more challenging direct personality stereotype
recognition task with RHD patients would provide data
bearing on the question of whether knowledge about facial
expression is necessary for successful completion of such
a task. This is important since it would clarify the
contribution of the various face processing systems to the
creation and activation of particular semantic codes.
Another question has to do with whether the
hypothesized defect of visual configural processing alone
is responsible for the face recognition impairment in
prosopagnosia or whether other factors must interact with
it. In other words, if a normal person were forced to
process a face in a sequential, feature-based mode, would
they also look prosopagnosic on direct identity
recognition tests? If the same type of stimulus were used
on an indirect task would normals perform normally?
Basically, this question raises two issues: 1) what does
it really mean to say that "visual configural processing"
is disrupted and, 2) what constitutes a "feature?" This
addresses the nature of visual perceptual processing.
A final question addresses the route by which
implicit identity recognition occurs in prosopagnosia.

118
Traditional cognitive models of face processing have
simply placed a functional lesion between Structural
Encoding (or its equivalent) and the FRU's (e.g., Figure
1-2). But no alternative route is offered by which the
face percept is allowed "implicit" access to the face-
related semantic system. A related question has to do
with the neuroanatomical pathway(s) which support implicit
face recognition. Bauer (1984) has implicated the dorsal
visuolimbic system described in Chapter 1 in normal
autonomic recognition of familiar faces. Is it possible
that this system carries visual information with
sufficient specificity to activate face-related semantic
information and support other forms of indirect face
recognition such as that seen with interference or priming
paradigms?

APPENDIX A
STEREOTYPE STIMULUS SET DEVELOPMENT
In order to evaluate the sensitivity of various
subject groups to the stereotype information contained in
faces, a set needed to be constructed which contained
faces judged as strong exemplars of given stereotype
categories. This study required faces which represented
good exemplars of several occupational categories and
personalty descriptors. The development of this stimulus
set consisted of three parts: 1) the selection of
occupational categories and personality descriptors for
which people were able to generate clear and distinct
stereotype images; 2) the determination of which of those
categories was represented in a large set of faces; and,
3) determination of which of the faces in the large set
were most representative of particular categories. The
following three studies were designed to achieve these
goals and yield a set of faces which were good
representatives of particular occupational categories and
personality descriptors.
119

120
Category Selection I
The first step in the development of the stereotype
stimulus set was the selection of a set of occupational
categories and personality descriptors for which have
distinctive and easily generated prototypical images.
Following the method of Klatzky et al. (1982a), twenty
clinical psychology graduate students and interns (8
males, 12 females; mean age = 27.25, SD = 4.87) at the
University of Florida completed a questionnaire in which
they rated 17 occupational categories and 17 personality
descriptors (Table 1) in terms of the distinctiveness of
the image they created and the ease of its generation on a
0 to 9 point scale (0 = indistinct or difficult to
generate). The occupational categories consisted of 13 of
those used by Klatzky et al. (1982a) and four considered
important by the present author. The personality
descriptors were chosen from among those used in several
cross-cultural multidimensional scaling studies of
personality descriptors (White, 1980). The occupational
categories and personality descriptors are presented in
Table A-l. The first ten of each were associated with the
most distinctive and easily generated prototypical images
and were selected for the next phase of the study.

121
Table A-l
Ranked Occupational and Personality Category Images
Mean
Distinctiveness
Mean
Difficulty
Rank
Category
Rating
Rating
1.
Rock Musician
8.15
8.30
2.
Model
8.05
8.15
3.
Athlete
7.65
7.85
4.
Farmer
6.85
7.45
5.
Judge
6.75
6.80
6.
Hairdresser
6.35
6.45
7.
Doctor3
6.25
6.15
8.
Accountant
6.20
6.00
9.
Truck Driver
6.10
6.30
10.
Laborer
5.90
6.65
11.
Entertainer3
5.65
6.25
12.
Lawyer3
5.35
5.70
13.
Salesman
5.35
5.35
14.
Police Detective
5.15
5.40
15.
Undertaker
5.15
5.35
16.
Professional3
3.90
4.75
17.
Watchmaker
3.35
3.35
Mean
Distinctiveness
Mean
Difficulty
Rank
Category
Rating
Rating
1.
Aggressive
7.30
6.85
2.
Sociable
7.00
7.35
3 .
Kind
6.90
6.90
4.
Shy
6.15
5.95
5.
Lazy
5.20
4.70
6.
Rude
5.05
5.25
7.
Humble
5.80
4.65
8.
Intolerant
4.75
4.90
9.
Irresponsible
4.50
4.55
10.
Jealous
4.40
3.90
11.
Obedient
3.85
3.85
12.
Clever
3.65
3.40
13.
Diligent
3.60
3.70
14.
Bold
3.50
3.10
15.
Selfish
3.35
2.95
16.
Individualistic
2.85
2.85
17.
Possessive
2.60
2.80
a Occupational categories not originally used by Klatzky
et al. (1982a).

122
Category Selection II
The first category selection study determined which
occupational categories and personality descriptors were
the most imageable. The purpose of the this study was to
determine which of the most imageable categories were best
represented in our face set. That is, while category "x"
may be the most imageable, there may be no exemplars of
that category among our faces so it would not be a useful
category for our purposes.
Stimuli
The stimuli for the preliminary studies were 101
black-and-white photographs of white males working or
going to school in the J. Hillis Miller Health Center.
None had glasses or beards (though mustaches were
allowed), and the faces had similar neutral expressions.
Each face was backed by a piece of gray poster board and a
second piece of gray poster board was used to cover neck
and clothing. Finally all faces were cropped to cover as
much hair as possible. Thus only face and hair around the
face were visible in the finished photograph and no other
clues were provided as to true occupation or personality
type.
Participants
Subjects were twenty University of Florida
undergraduates enrolled in Introductory Psychology classes

123
who received course credit for their participation. Four
males and six females (mean age = 20.5, sd = 2.51)
categorized the faces according to the occupational
categories while nine females and one male (mean age =
18.2, sd = .79) used the personality categories. Only
participants were born and raised in the United States
were used so as to provide a relatively circumscribed
cultural base.
Procedure
The twenty subjects were tested in four groups of 5.
Half of the subjects saw the faces in order from #1 to
#101, while the other half saw them in reverse order.
They were told to look at each face and pick three of the
10 categories to which the face looked most like it
belonged. Before actually making these judgements, the
subjects were shown all the faces for approximately two
seconds to familiarize them with the stimuli.
Each face was be presented via a slide projector for
approximately ten seconds followed by a period of
darkness. During the dark period the subjects picked the
three categories of which the face was most likely to be a
member and they distributed a total of 10 points to each
of the three categories based on how good an exemplar of
each category the face was, with no less than 1 point
being given to any one category. This method of ranking

does not assume equal distance between the three
categories.
124
Results
Since the purpose of this study was to determine the
representation of each category within the stimulus set as
a whole, the data was examined without reference to
individual faces. The frequency of selection of each
category by a subject was weighted based on the number of
points given to it. For instance, if category #1 was
picked and given six points, that was equivalent to
picking category #1 six times. Thus the final frequency
of category selection reflects, not only how frequently
the category was used, but how good the exemplars of that
category are.
Table A-2 presents the frequency of category usage
for each occupational category and personality descriptor.
The categories with frequencies of usage greater than 10%
were considered well represented. Thus five occupational
categories (athlete, doctor, accountant, truck driver,
laborer) and five personality descriptors (aggressive,
sociable, kind, shy, intolerant) were selected for use in
the final preliminary study.
Face Categorization
In this study subjects assigned each of the 101 faces
into the occupational and personality categories selected

125
in the previous study by assigning weights to each
category to indicate how good an exemplar each face was of
each category.
Table A-2
Weighted Frequency of Category Usage in the Set of 101
Faces
Occupational Categories Personality Descriptors
WT%
WT%
Rock Musician
7.3
Aggressive
14.0
Model
6.3
Sociable
12.7
Athlete
11.1
Kind
13.5
Farmer
9.3
Shy
10.7
Judge
8.0
Lazy
7.5
Hairdresser
8.2
Rude
9.3
Doctor
10.7
Humble
7.0
Accountant
11.8
Intolerant
11.6
Truck Driver
10.2
Irresponsible
7.3
Laborer
17.0
Jealous
6.3
Participants
Subjects were 20 University of Florida undergraduates
enrolled in Introductory Psychology who received course
credit for their participation, and twenty each of
subjects ranging in age from 40 to 50 and 60 and up.
Table A-3 indicates group sex ratio and means for age and
education. The 40-50 age group were primarily volunteers
recruited from a local church. The 60-up group was
composed mostly persons who had participated as subjects
in past experiments conducted in this lab. The remaining
subjects in both groups were recruited via an
advertisement in the local newspaper. Only participants
born and raised in the United States were used in this

126
study so as to provide a relatively circumscribed cultural
base.
Stimuli
The same faces used in Category Selection II were
used.
Table A-3
Descriptive Statistics for Face Categorization Subjects
Groups
40-50
Age
Education
Sex (M/F)
Undergrads
18.5 (0.76)
12.7 (0.73)
8/12
43.6 (2.62)
18.0 (2.62)
10 / 10
60-up
68.3 (4.85)
15.1 (2.57)
7/13
Procedure
Subjects in the three age ranges were tested
independently in groups ranging from two to nine. Half
the subjects in each group made occupational category
judgements first, followed by personality category
judgements, while the other half proceeded in reverse
order. Additionally, half began with face #1, with the
other half beginning with face #101.
After being told to look at each face and decide how
well each fits into the five personality or occupational
categories, the subjects were shown all of the faces for
approximately two seconds to familiarize them with the
stimuli. They then saw the faces again for approximately
ten seconds during which time they indicated how well the

127
face fit each category by distributing a total of nine
points to each category according to how good an exemplar
was of each category. Scores of 0 were allowed but the
total points given to all categories for one face must
have equalled * 9.* Thus a category of which a face is a
perfect exemplar would get a '9' and the remaining four
will receive a 'O'. If a face did not at all fit into a
category it would receive a 'O' for that category though
it may be a good exemplar of another. A face which did
not fit well in any categories would receive 'Is' and
•2s' .
Results
Informal observation of category weightings and
intuition indicated that the five categories in each
stereotype (occupation, personality) could be placed into
three "supercategories." The occupational categories
could be placed into Athlete (Supercategory 1; athlete),
Professional (Supercategory 2; doctor, accountant), and
Laborer (Supercategory 3; truck driver, laborer)
supercategories. The personality descriptors fit into Shy
(Supercategory 1; shy), Good Guy (Supercategory 2;
sociable, kind), and Bad Guy (Supercategory 3; aggressive,
intolerant) supercategories.
The weighted frequency of placement in each category
was calculated for each face and group. Within each
group, the face was assigned to the category and

128
supercategory into which it was placed most frequently.
The frequency of placement scores for category and
supercategory were averaged across groups for those faces
for which there was supercategory agreement across all
three groups. They were then ranked based on a measure
called the "supercategory transformed weight score" which
is simply the observed frequency of placement into that
supercategory divided by expected chance placement into
the supercategory. This measure is necessary because
chance placement into the "Shy" and "Athlete"
supercategories (which represent only one category each)
is 20%, while it is 40% in the others (they represent two
categories). Thus each can be compared meaningfully.
Forty-five faces met the criteria for use as
occupational stereotypes and forty-three met the criteria
for use as personality stereotypes, with fourteen meeting
both criteria. The twenty faces best exemplifying the two
stereotypes were selected resulting in a set of forty
different faces. Table A-4 provides supercategory
placement (SC), supercategory transformed weight score
(STWS), and observed frequency of placement (OFP) about
each of these faces.

129
Table A-4
Final Set of Occupational and Personality Stereotype Faces
Occupational Stereotypes Personality Stereotypes
Rank
Face
SC1
STWS
OFP
Face
SC2
STWS
OFP
1
61
1
2.41
48.2
28
2
2.07
82.6
2
93
1
2.34
46.9
95
2
1.99
79.7
3
1
1
2.34
46.8
12
3
1.92
77.1
4
11
2
2.22
89.0
71
2
1.91
76.2
5
35
1
2.17
43.5
24
3
1.91
76.2
6
34
1
2.09
83.5
99
3
1.90
76.1
7
16
1
2.08
41.5
94
2
1.83
73.2
8
47
2
2.07
41.3
54
2
1.77
70.8
9
31
1
2.04
81.7
76
3
1.74
69.4
10
20
1
2.01
40.2
60
3
1.73
69.3
11
90
1
2.01
40.1
52
2
1.71
68.5
12
88
2
1.98
79.3
32
3
1.69
67.6
13
66
1
1.86
37.2
59
3
1.64
65.6
14
43
2
1.83
73.2
23
3
1.62
64.7
15
22
1
1.81
36.2
80
3
1.61
64.6
16
69
2
1.80
72.1
85
3
1.57
62.8
17
77
1
1.80
36.0
18
3
1.57
62.6
18
7
1
1.78
35.7
10
3
1.53
61.1
19
6
1
1.74
34.8
49
3
1.52
61.0
20
97
1
1.74
34.8
5
2
1.52
60.8
1 1 = Athlete; 2 = Professional; 3 = Laborer
1 = Shy; 2 = Good Guy; 3 = Bad Guy

APPENDIX B
PILOT STUDIES
Experiment B-l
The purpose of this pilot study was to demonstrate
face-identity and expression-label interference using
voice reaction-time.
Participants
Participants were 11 undergraduate and graduate
students at the University of Florida who participated for
course credit (undergraduate students) or out of sympathy
for the examiner (graduate students). Their ages ranged
from 18 to 32 and all were female.
Stimuli
The famous faces were taken from the Albert set
(Albert, Butters, & Levin, 1979) and the affective faces
were a subset of the Ekman faces (Ekman et al.. 1972).
These were mounted .25 inches from the top and .75 inches
from the bottom of white t-scope cards. Two by three inch
pieces of gray paper were mounted on t-scope cards in the
same position as the faces. Below each face or shaded
blank was a .5 by 2.5 inch piece of black construction
paper on which the text would be projected. All text was
130

printed in bold 14-point Helvetica type and mounted on
black t-scope cards.
131
Procedure
The interference tests consisted of three conditions.
1) Control: in this condition the subject was presented
with a shaded blank and a word. This was the control
condition and every word that appeared with a face
appeared here also. This condition consisted of 20
trials. 2) Congruent: in this condition ten trials were
presented in which the face and word were the same. That
is, in the famous face test the face of Elvis Presley
would be paired with that name and, in the affective face
test, a happy face would be paired with the word "happy.”
3) Incongruent: in this condition another ten trials were
presented in which the face and the word were different.
In the famous face test the name belonged to a person
famous at about the same time as the person pictured but
was from a different occupational category (e.g., Elvis
Presley-Joe Dimaggio), while in the expression test the
printed expression label was one determined to be most
different from the pictured affect based on
multidimensional scaling (e.g., Frightened-Happy; Abelson
& Sermat, 1962). Because two expression may be equally
distant from a target affect in the multidimensional
scaling results some target expressions have more than one
foil.

132
A single trial consisted of the following: a black
fixation dot appeared at one inch above center line for
400 milliseconds; upon termination of the fixation dot, a
face or shaded blank appeared for an additional 400
milliseconds; at the end of that period the face remained
and the word appeared below the face for three seconds.
The subjects' task was to read the word as soon as it
appeared. Reaction-time was recorded by the examiner.
Subjects were told that they should focus on the
fixation dot until the face appeared then shift their gaze
to the position at which the word would appear. They were
instructed to read the word as quickly and loudly as
possible. Voice amplitude was emphasized to insure
sufficient volume to activate the stop-clock switch.
Subjects were then given five practice trials to
familiarize them with the procedure and to allow voice
volume modification as necessary. The Expression-label
test followed the practice trials. The subject read aloud
the list of the five expression labels, then proceeded
with the affective face-name test. They were then told
that the procedure on Test 2 (face-identity) was analogous
to that which they had just completed. They read a list
of all the names they were to see so as to familiarize
them with the items and correct any pronunciation
difficulties.

133
Results and Discussion
Famous Face-Identity Test. A repeated measures ANOVA
indicated that a significant difference existed among the
means of the three conditions (F = 9.03; p < .001). Post
hoc analysis using a t-test for dependent samples with a
Bonferoni correction indicated that the mean reaction time
in the Congruent condition was significantly faster than
for the Incongruent condition. No other means were
significantly different. This is consistent with the
findings of DeHaan et al. (1987) .
Table B-l
Means for the Control. Congruent, and Incongruent
Conditions in Experiments B-l through B-4
Condition
Control Con Incon
Experiment Type
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
Experiment B-l:
Famous Faces
Affective Faces
669
596
(086)
(057)
648
597
(097)
(065)
685
554
(102)
(066)
Experiment B-2:
Affective Faces
582
(038)
601
(047)
539
(036)
Experiment B-3:
Full-Affective Faces
Eyes-Affective Faces
551
547
(056)
(076)
544
541
(055)
(062)
550
547
(071)
(074)
Experiment B-4: Interference
Affective Faces 567
1
(048)
560
(065)
588
(058)
Affective Face-Name Test. A repeated measures ANOVA
revealed a significant difference among the three
conditions (F = 19.15, p < .0001). Post hoc comparisons
indicated no significant difference between the Control

134
and Congruent conditions. However, the Incongruent
condition was significantly faster than both the Control
and Congruent conditions. This reflects response
facilitation for the Incongruent condition rather than the
interference hypothesized and observed in the famous face
test.
Experiment B-2
It seems possible that famous faces, because of the
high degree of familiarity and the strong association they
have with their names, are processed more quickly and to a
deeper level than affective faces. In this experiment the
pre-word face exposure was extended from 500ms to 1500ms
and "catch trials" were instituted in an attempted to
facilitate complete processing of the affective facial
stimuli. The "catch trials" consisted of the presentation
of a number at the level of the fixation dot instead of a
face. During these trials neither a face nor a word
appeared and the subject had to read the number. If the
subject was fixating appropriately, the number would be
read very quickly; however, is he/she was watching for the
word to appear, latency to read the number would be
considerably longer. Thus it would be possible to
identify subjects who were not fixating and who, as a
result, might not be fully processing the faces. Only the
Expression-label test was given.

135
Participants
Participants for this study were five graduate
students and staff in the department of Clinical and
Health Psychology ranging in age from 19 to 33.
Results and Discussion
A repeated measures ANOVA again indicated the
presence of significant differences among the condition
means (F = 26.52, p < .0003). T-tests revealed that the
Incongruent condition was significantly faster than both
the Congruent and Control conditions. This is the same
pattern of results achieved in the first study with the
slight decrease in power expected from the use of such a
small sample.
Experiment B-3
On thing which became apparent in the course of the
first two pilot studies is that the reaction time tasks
required a degree of visual scanning which could not
realistically be expected from normal elderly controls
much less right hemisphere stroke patients. The following
experiment evaluated a modification which allowed easy
viewing of the full stimulus complex (face and word)
within a centrally fixated field of vision. The
participants for this study were two male and five female
graduate students and staff in the department of Clinical

136
and Health Psychology with a mean age of 27.6 years (sd =
3.78) .
Stimuli and Procedure
Two completely new sets of stimuli were created for
this study using a subset of faces from the revised
Florida Facial Affect Test (FFAT; Blonder et al.. 1991).
The first set was designed to be roughly equivalent to the
previous set in that it used the full face. The face or
shaded blank was mounted on a black t-scope card with the
bottom edge of the photograph on the horizontal mid-line
and the top edge .5 inches from the top of the card. The
words were mounted on a separate black t-scope card with
their upper edge on the horizontal mid-line and were
printed in bold face 24 point helvética type.
The second set used only the portion of the faces
from just above the point of the nose to mid-forehead, a
strip approximately .5 inches high. These were mounted
with the bottom edge on the horizontal center line. The
words for this set were in the same style as those for the
full-face set. Thus, for both sets, the face (or eyes)
was presented just above central fixation and the word
just below it.
The order in which the two tests were given was
counter-balanced to control for order effects. "Catch
trials" were continued with the numbers printed in the

larger type and centrally mounted. The face were
presented for 1500 ms before the word appeared.
137
Results and Discussion
The analysis of variance indicated no significant
difference among the condition means for either test.
Analysis of individual scores suggested that the results
were random as no consistent pattern, even a
nonsignificant one, could be discerned. Clearly, these
procedural modifications removed the influence of the
facial photograph entirely. It was evident, at this
point, that if the goal of a test which allowed scanning-
free central fixation was to be achieved, a modification
of the original interference paradigm would be required.
Experiment B-4
To allow for a single central fixation without
scanning the presentation of the expression label followed
face offset rather than simultaneously with the face. The
task was to read the expression-label as quickly as
possible.
Participants
Subjects in this study were three male and seven
female undergraduates (mean age = 18.9, sd = 1.91) who
received course credit for participation.

138
Stimuli and Procedure
The eyes-only stimulus set used in Experiment B-4 was
used again in this experiment. A new set of words in the
same large type were mounted on separate t-scope cards in
the same position as the eyes. The fixation dot was moved
so that it was in a position equivalent to the area
directly between the eyes. Thus fixation on the dot would
result in full, undistracted perception of all stimuli
without the need to scan. The fixation dot appeared for
500ms, followed by the face or blank for 1500ms. The
trial ended with the 300ms presentation of the eyes. The
subject was instructed to read the word as quickly as
possible. No "catch trials" were used.
Results and Discussion
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant
difference among condition means (F = 4.51, p < .02).
Post hoc test indicated that the Incongruent condition was
significantly slower than the Control and Congruent
conditions. The congruent condition was faster than the
Control condition but the effect did not reach
significance.
Experiment B-5
This experiment served to pilot test all procedures
specifically designed for this project and as a
replication of Experiment 4. Subjects were 5 male and 10

139
female undergraduates (mean age = 20.57, SD = 5.21) who
earned course credit for their participation.
Stimuli and Procedures
Interference Tests. All indirect test stimulus sets
were constructed such that the fixation dot, eyes of the
face, and word were all at the same position, thus
eliminating the need for scanning during stimulus
presentation. All test consisted of 40 trials (20
Control, 10 Congruent, 10 Incongruent) with 5 practice
trials preceding each test. No catch trials were used. A
trial consisted of a 500ms presentation of the fixation
dot, followed by a face or blank for 1500ms, after which
the word (name) was presented for 3000ms. Upon the
appearance of the word the subject would make a "yes/no"
response, except for the expression test in which they
would read the word.
Decisions were based on the following criteria. For
the Occupational Stereotype test, subjects were to say
"yes'* if the occupational category was an athletic job
(i.e., quarterback, shortstop) and "no" for any other
occupation (accountant, doctor, laborer, truck driver).
For the Personality Stereotype test they said "yes" if the
word described a "bad guy" (i.e., aggressive, intolerant)
and "no" if it described anyone else (kind, sociable,
shy). Finally, in the Identity test, they responded "yes"
when the name presented was that of a politician.

140
Three rating tests were designed for this study. The
Occupational and personality stereotype tests consisted of
10 faces presented twice, once each with its "correct"
category and "incorrect" category as indicated by the
results of the preliminary research (see Chapter 2). The
Identity test consisted of 10 famous faces presented
twice, once with its correct name and once with the name
of another person famous at about the same time but from a
different occupational category. In all tests half of the
faces were paired first with the correct label and half
with the incorrect label. The subject's task was to rate
on a 9-point Likert scale each face-label pairing in terms
of how well they matched. Specifically, in the
occupational stereotype test they rated how much they
thought the person shown looked like he belonged to the
occupational category indicated (1 = very much no; 9 =
very much yes). In the Personality stereotype test they
rated how much they thought the person shown would be
described using the descriptor indicated (again, 1 = very
much no; 9 = very much yes). Finally, on the famous faces
test, the subject indicated how confident they were that
the face and name went together (1 = very confident no; 9
= very confident yes).
Results and Discussion
Interference Tests. Consistent with previous results
a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the Congruent

141
condition of the Identity test was significantly faster
than the Control and Incongruent conditions (F (12) =
9.11, p < .004). However, no significant differences
occurred among the remaining tests. Because early
analysis indicated this trend, the second half of the
subjects were explicitly told to ignore the faces and
focus only on the word presented. Trends in the results,
while not significant, suggested that those subjects
specifically told not to pay any attention to the faces
performed more in the hypothesized direction. Based on
these findings and discussion with DeHaan (personal
communication, February 1990) it was decided to reduce the
prime exposure to 500ms to reduce the chance that the
effects of automatic processing being superseded by
conscious processing. This was found to be important in
earlier work using the "mere-exposure" paradigm (Greve &
Bauer, 1990) .
Rating Tests. For each subject, mean ratings for the
correct face-label pairing and incorrect face-label
pairing were computed and the mean incorrect pairing score
was subtracted from the mean correct pairing score
producing a mean difference score. A t-test indicated
that the difference score was significantly different from
0. All mean difference scores were significantly
different from 0 (see Table B-2) indicating that these
subjects could accurately discriminate correct from
incorrect pairings. Table B-2 presents this data.

142
Table B-2 Results of Experiment B-5
Interference Tests
Condition
Control Con
mean sd mean sd
Incon
mean sd
Occupation
Personality
Affective Faces
Famous Faces
720 (079) 730 (091) 736 (099)
701 (083) 704 (089) 695 (096)
543 (062) 558 (065) 553 (069)
853 (096) 805 (088) 863 (089)
Rating Tests
mean sd
t
P <
Famous Faces
Occupational
Personality
4.97 (1.05) 17.72
3.66 (0.97) 14.10
2.69 (1.08) 9.28
.0001
.0001
.0001
Experiment B-6
This experiment served to pilot the entire
experimental protocol and serve as the basis for any
necessary final modifications to procedures. Subjects
were 15 university undergraduates who received course
credit for their participation. The procedure for the
interference tests is as described in Experiment 5 with a
500ms prime exposure. The following tests were
administered in the following order: Occupational and
Personality Stereotype Interference tests; Expression-
label Interference test; Face-Identity Interference test;
Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised; Occupational and Personality Stereotype
Rating Tests; Famous Faces Rating Test; Milner Test of
Facial Recognition; Benton Facial Recognition Test; the

143
five subtests of the Florida Facial Affect Test (FFAT).
Full descriptions of all tests can be found in Chapter 2.
Results
Table B-3 presents the means and standard deviations
for scores on all tests. Performance of all subjects on
all standardized tests (i.e., WAIS-R Vocabulary, Milner
Faces, Benton Faces, FFAT) were well within normal limits.
The mean rating-test scores were converted to difference
scores as described in Experiment B-5; all were found to
be significantly different from 0 (Occupation: t = 14.13,
p < .0001; Personality: t = 9.18, p < .0001; Famous
Faces: t = 13.73, p < .0001) indicating that the subjects
were all able to accurately discriminate correct from
incorrect pairings.
The reaction times from the indirect tests were also
transformed so as to yield a difference score. For each
subject the mean and standard deviation for the 20 RT's in
the Control condition were computed. Then each RT in the
Congruent and Incongruent conditions was transformed to a
standard score based on the Control condition mean and
standard deviation values. The mean standard scores for
those two conditions were then computed and the mean
Incongruent standard score was subtracted from the mean
Congruent standard score. The mean group difference
scores were then computed (see Table B-3). Scores less
than 0 indicated that the RT’s for the Congruent condition

144
were faster than for the Incongruent condition and the
converse was true for scores greater than 0. T-tests
indicated that the Congruent condition was faster than the
Incongruent condition for the Personality and Identity
tests. No significant difference was noted for the
Occupational stereotype test. However the expression test
had a mean difference score that was significantly
different from 0 at alpha = .06, which suggests a trend in
the hypothesized direction.
Table B-3
Mean Scores for Experiment B-6
General Information
mean
sd
Age
18.6
(.91)
Education (years)
12.6
(.91)
WIAS-R Vocabulary (scaled score)
13.5
(2.6)
Standardized Tests
Benton Faces
46.7
(1.8)
Milner Faces
8.6
(1.1)
Facial Identity Discrimination (FFAT)
99.3%
(1.8)
Facial Affect Discrimination (FFAT)
93.7%
(4.8)
Facial Affect Naming (FFAT)
94.0%
(6.0)
Facial Affect Selection (FFAT)
98.7%
(3.0)
Facial Affect Matching (FFAT)
98.0%
(3.7)
Ratina Tests
Occupation Stereotype Recognition
3.67
a.°)C
Personality Stereotype Recognition
3.38
(1.4)°
Famous Faces Recognition
5.10
(1 • 4) C
Interference Tests
Occupation Interference
-.12 (
.38)
Personality Interference
-.28 (
. 38) a
Affective Faces Interference
-.30 (
.58)
Famous Faces Interference
—
.55
59)b
: p < .05; b: p < .oi; c: p < .001; indicates the mean is
significantly different from 0; relevant only for the last
seven tests

145
Summary and Discussion
On the whole, the findings of this pilot study
indicated that the undergraduate subjects performed as
hypothesized. However, the non-significant results of the
Occupational Stereotype and Expression-label Interference
tasks require some explanation. For the Expression-label
Interference test, the facial stimuli consisted of the eye
portion of affective faces. The intensity of the prime
may have been insufficient to cause an effect that was
statistically significant. Use of full faces as primes
should solve this problem. On the other hand, the failure
of the Occupational Stereotype Interference test requires
a more complex explanation.
The ratings of the 40 to 50 year old age group formed
the basis of the placement of a face into a particular
occupational category, with agreement with the older and
younger groups desirable, but not essential for the face's
use in the stimulus set. Thus, the category a face was
placed into for inclusion in the stimulus set did not
always agree with the category into which it was place by
the younger group. This may be one source of error
contributing the current findings.
A second source of error may be in the younger
subject's lack of broad experience with members of the
categories used in this test. Less experience would
result in weaker association between the face and a

146
semantic category, which would consequently reduce the
power of a face to prime its category. Thus, it is likely
that the results observed in the younger group will not be
predictive of the performance of the primary group on
which the faces were normed and who with greater
experience with the occupational categories in question.

APPENDIX C
STIMULUS FACES
This appendix contains examples of the faces used in
the direct and indirect tasks. Figures C-l through C-4
are examples of the four occupational categories used
(i.e., athlete, doctor, accountant, laborer). Figures C-5
through C-8 show examples from each of the four
personality categories used (i.e., aggressive, intolerant,
kind, sociable). Figures C-9 through C-12 are examples of
the happy, sad, angry, and frightened expressions used in
both the Expression-Label Interference task and the FFAT.
Finally, Figures C-13 through C-16 are examples of famous
faces from both the Politician and Nonpolitician
categories.
147

Figure C-l. Laborer

Figure C-2. Accountant

150
Figure C-3. Athlete

151
Figure C-4. Doctor.

152

Figure C-6.
Sociable

154
Figure C-7. Aggressive

155
Figure C-8. Intolerant

156
Figure C-9
Happy

157
Figure C-10.
Sad.

158
Figure C-ll. Angry

159
Figure C-12. Frightened.

160
Figure C-13.
John Kennedy.

161
Figure C-14. Lyndon Johnson

162
Figure C-15. Bob Hope.

163
Figure 016. Elvis Presley.

REFERENCES
Abdi, H (1986). Faces, prototypes, and additive tree
representations. In HD Ellis, MA Jeeves, F Newcombe, &
A Young (Eds.), Aspects of Face Processing (pp. 178-
184). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Abelson, RP & Sermat, V (1962). Multidimensional scaling
of facial expressions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 63. 546-554.
Albert, ML, Butters, N, & Levin, J (1979). Temporal
gradients in the retrograde amnesia of patients with
alcoholic Korsakoff's disease. Archives of Neurology,
36/ 211-216.
Baddeley, AD (1982). Domains of recollection.
Psychological Review. 89. 708-729.
Bauer, RM (1982). Visual hypoemotionality as a symptom of
visual-limbic disconnection in man. Archives of
Neurology, 39. 702-708.
Bauer, RM (1984). Autonomic recognition of names and
faces in prosopagnosia: A neuropsychological
application of the guilty knowledge test.
Neuropsvchologia, 22. 457-469.
Bauer, RM (1985). Agnosia. In KM Heilman & E Valenstein
(Eds.). Clinical Neuropsychology (2nd; pp. 187-242).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, RM & Trobe, JD (1984). Visual memory and
perceptual impairments in prosopagnosia. Journal of
Clinical Neuro-Ophthalmology, 4. 39-46.
Bauer, RM & Verfaellie, M (1988). Electrodermal
discrimination of familiar but not unfamiliar faces in
prosopagnosia. Brain and Cognition, 8, 240-252.
Baylis, GC, Rolls, ET, & Leonard, CM (1985). Selectivity
between faces in the responses of a population of
neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus
of the monkey. Brain Research. 342, 91-102.
164

165
Bear, DM (1983). Hemispheric specialization and the
neurology of emotion. Archives of Neurology, 40. 195-
202.
Benton, A (1990). Facial recognition 1990. Cortex. 26.
491-499.
Benton, AL (1985). Visuoperceptual, visuospatial, and
visuoconstructive disorders. In KM Heilman & E
Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology. 2nd ed.
pp. 151-186. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benton, AL, Hamsher, K, Varney, NR, & Spreen, 0 (1983).
Contributions to Neuropsychological Assessment. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Benton, AL & Van Allen, MW (1968). Impairment in facial
recognition in patients with cerebral disease. Cortex.
4, 344-358.
Beyn, ES & Knyazeva, GR (1962). The problem of
prosopagnosia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and
Psychiatry, 25. 154-158.
Blonder, LX, Bowers, D, & Heilman, KM (1991). The role of
the right hemisphere in emotional communication.
Brain. 114. 1115-1127.
Blumstein, SE, Milberg, W, & Shrier, R (1982). Semantic
processing in aphasia: Evidence from an auditory
lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 17. 301-
315.
Bornstein, B & Kidron, DP (1959). Prosopagnosia. Journal
of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 22. 124-
131.
Bornstein, B (1963). Prosopagnosia. In L Halpern (Ed.),
Problems of Dynamic Neurology. New York: Gruñe and
Stratton.
Bornstein, B, Sroka, H, & Munitz, H (1969). Prosopagnosia
with animal face agnosia. Cortex. 5. 164-169.
Bowers, D, Bauer, RM, Coslett, HB, & Heilman, KM (1985).
Processing of faces by patients with unilateral
hemisphere lesions: I. Dissociation between judgments
of facial affect and facial identity. Brain and
Cognition, 4. 258-272.
Bowers, D, Blonder, LX, & Heilman, KM (in press).
Differential impact of right and left hemisphere
lesions on facial emotion and object imagery. Brain.

166
Bowers, D & Heilman, KM (1984). Dissociation between the
processing of affective and nonaffective faces: A case
study. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6. 367-
379.
Bruce, V & Young, A (1986). Understanding face
recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77. 305-
327.
Bruce, V (1983). Recognizing Faces. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Series B^.
302, 423-436.
Bruce, V (1979). Searching for politicians: An
information-processing approach to face recognition.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31. 323-
395.
Bruyer, R, Laterre, C, Serón, X, Feyereisen, P,
Strypstein, E, Pierranrd, E, & Rectem, D (1983). A
case of prosopagnosia with some preserved covert
rememberance of familiar faces. Brain and Cognition,
2, 257-284.
Cole M & Perez-Cruet, J (1964). Prosopagnosia.
Neuropsvcholoqia. 2. 237-246.
Damasio, AR, Damasio, H, & Van Hoesen, GW (1982).
Prosopagnosia: Anatomic basis and behavioral
mechanisms. Neurology, 32. 331-342.
DeHaan, EHF, Bauer, RM, & Greve, KW (in press).
Behavioral and physiologic evidence for covert face
recognition in a prosopagnosic patient. Cortex.
DeHaan, EHF, Young, A, & Newcombe, F (1987). Faces
interference with name classification in a
prosopagnosic patient. Cortex. 23. 309-316.
DeKosky, ST, Heilman, KM, Bowers, D, & Valenstein, E
(1980). Recognition and discrimination of emotional
faces and pictures. Brain and Language, 9. 206-214.
Denman, SB (1984). Denman Neuropsychology Memory Scale.
Charleston, SC: Author.
DeRenzi, E, Faglioni, P, & Spinnler, H (1968). The
performance of patients with unilateral brain damage on
face recognition tasks. Cortex. 4. 17-34.
Dion, K, Berscheid, E, & Walster, E (1972). What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24. 285-290.

167
Einot, I, & Gabriel, KR (1975). A study of the powers of
several methods of multiple comparisons. Journal of
the American Statistical Association. 70. 351.
Ekman, P, Friesan, W, & Eilsworth, P (1972). Emotion in
the Human Face. New York: Pergamon Press.
Ellis, AW & Young, AW (1989). Human Cognitive
Neuropsychology♦ London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, HD (1986). Introduction: Processes underlying
face recognition. In R Bruyer (Ed.), The
Neuropsychology of Face Perception and Facial
Expression (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ellis, HD (1983). The role of the right hemisphere in
face perception. In AW Young (Ed.), Functions of the
Right Cerebral Hemisphere (pp. 33-64). London:
Academic Press.
Ellis, HD (1981). Theoretical aspects of face
recognition. GM Davies, HD Ellis, & JW Shepherd
(Eds.), Perceiving and Remembering Faces (pp. 171-197).
London: Academic Press.
Ellis, HD, Shepherd, JW, & Davies, GM (1979).
Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from
internal and external features: Some implications for
theories of face recognition. Perception. 8. 431-439.
Endo, M, Takahashi, K, & Maruyama, K (1984). Effects of
observer's attitude on the familiarity of faces: Using
the difference cue value between central and peripheral
facial elements as an index of familiarity. Tohoku
Psvchologica Folia. 43. 23-34.
Fried, I, Mateer, C, Ojeman, G, Wohns, R, & Fedio, P
(1982). Organization of visuospatial functions in
human cortex: Evidence from electrical stimulation.
Brain. 105. 349-371.
Goldstein, AG, Chance, JE, & Gilbert, B (1984). Facial
stereotypes of good guys and bad guys: A replication
and extension. Bulletin of the Psvchonomic Society.
22, 549-552.
Greve, KW & Bauer, RM (1990). Implicit Learning of faces
in prosopagnosia: An application of the mere-exposure
paradigm. Neuropsvchologia, 28. 1035-1041.

168
Greve, KW & Bauer, RM (January, 1988). Aspects of
affective facial processing in prosopagnosia:
Consistency of likeability ratings. Presented at 16th
meeting of INS, New Orleans, LA.
Hay, DM & Young, AW (1982). The human face. In HD Ellis
(Ed.), Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Functions
(pp. 173-202). London: Academic Press.
Heit, G, Smith, ME, & Halgren, E (1988). Neural encoding
of individual words and faces by the human hippocampus
and amygdala. Nature. 333. 773-775.
Hintzman, DL (1990). Human learning and memory:
Connections and dissociations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41. 109-139.
Hubei, DH (1988). Eve, Brain, and Vision. New York:
Scientific American Library.
Hubei, DH & Wiesel, TN (1977). Functional architecture of
macaque monkey visual cortex. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London (Series B), 198. 1-59.
Jacoby, LL (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing
interactive processes in reading. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22. 485-508.
Johnson, MK & Hasher, L (1987). Human learning and
memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 36. 631-668.
Kaas, JH (1989) . Changing concepts of visual cortex
organization in primates. In JW Brown (Ed.)
Neuropsychology of Visual Perception (pp. 3-32).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Klatzky, RL & Forrest, FH (1984). Recognizing familiar
and unfamiliar faces. Memory & Cognition. 12. 60-70.
Klatzky, RL, Martin, GL, & Kane, RA (1982a). Influence of
social-category activation on processing of visual
information. Social Cognition, 1. 95-109.
Klatzky, RL, Martin, GL, & Kane, RA (1982b). Semantic
interpretation effects on memory for faces. Memory and
Cognition. 10. 195-206.
Kolb, B, Milner, B, & Taylor, L (1983). Perception of
faces by patients with localized cortical excisions.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37. 8-18.

169
Leonard, CM, Rolls, ET, Wilson, FAW, & Baylis, GC (1985).
Neurons in the amygdala of the monkey with responses
selective for faces. Behavioral Brain Research. 15.
159-176.
Levin, HS, Hamsher, KS, & Benton, AL. (1975). A short
form of the Test of Facial Recognition for clinical
use. Journal of Psychology, 91. 223-228.
Levine, DN & Calvanio, R (1989). Prosopagnosia: A defect
in visual configural processing. Brain and Cognition,
10, 149-170.
Ley, RG & Bryden, MP (1979). Hemispheric differences in
processing emotions and faces. Brain and Language, 7.
127-138.
Ley, RG & Strauss, E (1986). Hemispheric asymmetries in
the perception of facial expressions in normals. In R
Bruyer (Ed.), The Neuropsychology of Face Perception
and Facial Expression (pp. 269-289). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lezak, MD (1983). Neuropsychological Assessment. New
York: Oxford University Press.
McKeever, WF & Dixon, MS (1981). Right-hemisphere
superiority for discriminating memorized from
nonmemorized faces: Affective imagery, sex, and
percieved emotionality effects. Brain and Language,
12, 246-260.
Medin, DL & Schaffer, MM (1978). Context theory of
classification learning. Psychological Review. 85.
207-238.
Merikle, PM & Reingold, EM (1991). Comparing direct
(explicit) and indirect (implicit) measures to study
unconscious memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology; Learning. Memory, and Cognition. 17. 224-
233.
Milberg, W & Blumstein, SE (1981). Lexical decision and
aphasia: Evidence for semantic processing. Brain and
Language, 14. 371-385.
Milner, B (1968). Visual recognition and recall after
right-temporal lobe excision in man. Neuropsvchologia,
6, 191-209.
Mishkin, M, Ungerleider, LG, & Macko, KA (1983). Object
vision and spatial vision: Two cortical pathways.
Trends in Neuroscience. 6. 414-417.

170
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, J.H. (1985). Applied
Linear Statistical Models (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Pizzamiglio, L, Zoccolotti, P, Mammucari, A, & Cesaroni, R
(1983). The independence of face identity and facial
expression recognition mechanisms: Relationship to sex
and cognitive style. Brain and Cognition, 2. 176-188.
Rapczak, SZ, Kazniak, AW, & Rubens, AB (1989). Anomia for
facial expressions: Evidence for a category specific
visual-verbal disconnection syndrome.
Neuropsvchologia, 27. 1031-1041.
Ratcliff, G & Newcombe, F (1982). Object recognition:
Some deductions from the clinical evidence. In AW
Ellis (Ed.), Normality and Pathology in Cognitive
Functions. London: Academic Press.
Reingold, EM & Merikle, PM (1990). On the inter¬
relatedness of theory and measurement in the study of
unconscious processes. Mind and Language, 5. 9-28.
Rhodes, G (1985). Lateralized processes in face
recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 76. 249-
271.
Richardson-Klavehn, A & Bjork, RA (1988). Measures of
memory. Annual Review of Psychology. 39. 475-543.
Roediger, HL (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without
remembering. American Psychologist, 45. 1043-1056.
Ryan, TA (1960). Significance tests for multiple
comparison of proportions, variances, and other
statistics. Psychological Bulletin. 57. 318-328.
Ryan, TA (1959). Multiple comparisons in psychological
research. Psychological Bulletin. 56. 26-47.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1985). SAS/STAT Guide for Personal
Computers, Version 6 Edition. Cary, NC: Author.
Schacter, DL (1987). Implicit Memory: History and
current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning. Memory, and Cognition.
Secord, PF (1958). Facial features and inference
processes in interpersonal perception. In R Tagiur & L
Petrullo (Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal
Behavior. Stanford University Press.
Shallice, T (1988). From Neuropsychology to Mental
Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

171
Strauss, E & Moscovitch, M (1981). Perception of facial
expressions. Brain and Language, 13. 308-332.
Suberi, M & McKeever, WF (1977). Differential right
hemispheric memory storage of emotional and non-
emotional faces. Neuropsychologia. 15. 757-768.
Thornton, GR (1943). The effect upon judgments of
personality traits of varying a single factor in a
photograph. Journal of Social Psychology, 18. 127-148.
Tranel, D & Damasio, AR (1985). Knowledge without
awareness: An autonomic index of facial recognition by
prosopagnosics. Science. 288. 1453-1454.
Tranel, D, Damasio, AR, & Damasio, H (1988). Intact
recognition of facial expression, gender, and age in
patients with impaired recognition of face identity.
Neurology, 38. 690-696.
Warrington, EK & James, M (1967). An experimental
investigation of facial recognition in patients with
unilateral cerebral lesions. Cortex. 3. 317-326.
Wechsler, D (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-
Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Weldon, MS & Roediger, HL (1987). Altering retrieval
demands reverses the picture superiority effect.
Memory and Cognition. 15. 269-280.
Welsch, RE (1977). Stepwise multiple comparison
procedures. Journal of the American Statistical
Association. 72. 359.
White, GM (1980). Conceptual universals in interpersonal
language. American Anthropologist. 82. 759-781.
Yarmey, AD (1973). I recognise your face but I can't
remember your name: Further evidence on the tip-of-
the-tongue phenomenon. Memory and Cognition. 1. 287-
290.
Yin, RK (1970). Face recognition by brain-injured
patients: A dissociable ability. Neuropsvchologia, 8.
395-402.
Yin, RK (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 81. 141-145.
Young, AW, Ellis, AW, Flude, BM, McWeeny, KH, & Hay, DC
(1986). Face-name interference. Journal of
Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and
Performance. 12. 466-475.

172
Young, AW, Hay, DC, & Ellis, AW (1986). Getting semantic
information from familiar faces. In HD Ellis, MA
Jeeves, F Newcombe, & A Young (Eds), Aspects of Face
Processing (pp. 123-135). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers.
Young, AW, Hay, DC, & Ellis, AW (1985). The faces that
launched a thousand slips: Everyday difficulties and
errors in recognizing people. British Journal of
Psychology, 76. 495-523.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Kevin W. Greve was born on April 14, I960, in New
Orleans, Louisiana. He lived in Shreveport, Louisiana,
for 19 years and is a May, 1985, graduate of Louisiana
State University in Shreveport with a Bachelor of Science
degree (cum laude) in psychology. He entered the
University of Florida in August, 1986, as a graduate
student in the Department of Clinical and Health
Psychology. His area of specialization within clinical
psychology is neuropsychology. In May, 1988, he received
is Master of Science degree in clinical psychology. He is
currently a predoctoral clinical psychology intern at the
Veterans Administration Medical Center in Gainesville,
Florida. Following completion of his internship and Ph.D.
degree in August, 1991, he will become an assistant
professor in the Department of Psychology at the
University of New Orleans. Then he is going fishing.
173

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Associate Professor of Clinical and
Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dawn Bowers
Associate Professor of Clinical and
Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
(^JjLLrX2> ^3f^vr^XC-
Eileen B. Fennell
Professor of Clinical and Health
Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Michael Conlon
Assistant Research Scientist of
Statistics
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the College of Health Related Professions and
to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
August 1991
'Dean, College of Health Related
Professions —
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA