Cited by 41Face Recognition and PerceptionNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Does holistic processing require a large brain? insights from honeybees and wasps in fine visual recognition tasks.

Open access
Avarguès-Weber, Aurore, d’Amaro, Daniele, Metzler, Marita, Finke, Valerie, Baracchi, David, Dyer, Adrian G.·2018·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The expertise of humans for recognizing faces is largely based on holistic processing mechanism, a sophisticated cognitive process that develops with visual experience. The various visual features of a face are thus glued together and treated by the brain as a unique stimulus, facilitating robust recognition. Holistic processing is known to facilitate fine discrimination of highly similar visual stimuli, and involves specialized brain areas in humans and other primates. Although holistic processing is most typically employed with face stimuli, subjects can also learn to apply similar image analysis mechanisms when gaining expertise in discriminating novel visual objects, like becoming experts in recognizing birds or cars. Here we ask if holistic processing with expertise might be a mechanism employed by the comparatively miniature brains of insects. We thus test whether honeybees (Apis mellifera) and/or wasps (Vespula vulgaris) can use holistic-like processing with experience to recognize images of human faces, or Navon-like parameterized-stimuli. These insect species are excellent visual learners and have previously shown ability to discriminate human face stimuli using configural type processing. Freely-flying bees and wasps were consequently confronted with classical tests for holistic processing, the part-whole effect and the composite-face effect. Both species could learn similar faces from a standard face recognition test used for humans, and their performance in transfer tests was consistent with holistic processing as defined for studies on humans. Tests with parameterized stimuli also revealed a capacity of honeybees, but not wasps, to process complex visual information in a holistic way, suggesting that such sophisticated visual processing may be far more spread within the animal kingdom than previously thought, although may depend on ecological constraints.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01313

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large brains may not be required to generate complex behavior, and brain mosaicism and circuitry rather than overall size may be important.

    “Large brains may not be required to generate complex behavior, and brain mosaicism and circuitry-rather than overall size-may be important (Healy andRowe, 2007, 2013;Chittka and Niven, 2009;Avarguès-Weber et al., 2018;Logan et al., 2018;Godfrey and Gronenberg, 2019).”

    From When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants (2021) · cites this paper as Avarguès-Weber et al., 2018

    The Discussion (page not supplied) says large brains may not be necessary to process seemingly complex stimuli such as faces, and reports holistic-like visual processing in bees and wasps. It hypothesizes a role for mushroom bodies, but does not establish that brain mosaicism or circuitry matters more than overall brain size. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avarguès-Weber, A., d’Amaro, D., Metzler, M., Finke, V., Baracchi, D., & Dyer, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Monash University (AU)
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2018-07-31
Volume
9
Pages
1313-1313
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887557768
Cited by
41
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fondation Fyssen (DP0878968, DP0987989)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier
  • Australian Research Council
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • U.S. Air Force
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
holistic processing, face recognition (cognition), Apis mellifera, wasps, Vespula vulgaris, configural processing, composite face effect, visual expertise, comparative cognition, transfer of learning

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