The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Do 7‐month‐old infants process independent features or facial configurations?
Abstract
The present experiment tested whether 7‐month‐old infants process a face as a configuration or as a collection of independent features. Thirty‐two 7‐month‐old infants participated. Infants were habituated to two female faces and then tested on a familiar face, a switched face (consisting of all familiar features but a new combination of those features), and a novel face. It was reasoned that if infants processed only independent features of the face, the switched face should not look novel to them relative to the familiar face. If, however, infants processed the relationship among features (i.e. a configuration), the switched face should look novel. Furthermore, the study was based upon the well‐established finding that inversion disrupts configural processing of faces. Thus, one group of infants saw only upright faces throughout the experiment, whereas a second group saw only inverted faces. It was hypothesized that by the age of 7 months, infants should process an upright face as a configuration, but an inverted face as independent features. The findings confirmed this hypothesis. In the upright condition, infants looked longer at the composite (switched) face than at the familiar face, whereas in the inverted condition infants did not. These findings are consistent with other reports of 7‐month‐old infants' ability to process configurations of both faces and non‐faces and are consistent with the information processing approach proposed by Cohen (1998. An information‐processing approach to infant perception and cognition. In The Development of Sensory, Motor, and Cognitive Capacities in Early Infancy, Simion F, Butterworth G (eds). Psychology Press: East Sussex; 277–300). Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The many faces of configural processing
Maurer, D., Grand, R. L., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01903-4 · Cited by 2,110
Configural Face Processing Develops more Slowly than Featural Face Processing
Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p3339 · Cited by 654
Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?
McKone, E., Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B. C. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.002 · Cited by 443
The development of facial emotion recognition: the role of configural information
Durand, K., Gallay, M., Seigneuric, A., Robichon, F., & Baudouin, J.-Y. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.12.001 · Cited by 355
McKone, E., & Yovel, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.5.778 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, L. B., & Cashon, C. H.
- Venue
- Infant and Child Development
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 83-92
- ISSN
- 1522-7219 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-7227
- OpenAlex
- W2030301190
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do 7‐month‐old infants process independent features or facial configurations? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/icd.250
- The paper
- Cohen, L. B., & Cashon, C. H. (2001). Do 7‐month‐old infants process independent features or facial configurations? Infant and Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.250
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.