Literature DB >> 15028214

Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing.

Allison B Sekuler1, Carl M Gaspar, Jason M Gold, Patrick J Bennett.   

Abstract

Humans are remarkably adept at recognizing objects across a wide range of views. A notable exception to this general rule is that turning a face upside down makes it particularly difficult to recognize. This striking effect has prompted speculation that inversion qualitatively changes the way faces are processed. Researchers commonly assume that configural cues strongly influence the recognition of upright, but not inverted, faces. Indeed, the assumption is so well accepted that the inversion effect itself has been taken as a hallmark of qualitative processing differences. Here, we took a novel approach to understand the inversion effect. We used response classification to obtain a direct view of the perceptual strategies underlying face discrimination and to determine whether orientation effects can be explained by differential contributions of nonlinear processes. Inversion significantly impaired performance in our face discrimination task. However, surprisingly, observers utilized similar, local regions of faces for discrimination in both upright and inverted face conditions, and the relative contributions of nonlinear mechanisms to performance were similar across orientations. Our results suggest that upright and inverted face processing differ quantitatively, not qualitatively; information is extracted more efficiently from upright faces, perhaps as a by-product of orientation-dependent expertise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15028214     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.02.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  91 in total

1.  The role of eyes in early face processing: a rapid adaptation study of the inversion effect.

Authors:  Dan Nemrodov; Roxane J Itier
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2011-05-23

2.  Initial eye movements during face identification are optimal and similar across cultures.

Authors:  Charles C-F Or; Matthew F Peterson; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  The influence of natural contour and face size on the spatial frequency tuning for identifying upright and inverted faces.

Authors:  Jessica Royer; Verena Willenbockel; Caroline Blais; Frédéric Gosselin; Sandra Lafortune; Josiane Leclerc; Daniel Fiset
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-01-02

4.  Visual noise reveals category representations.

Authors:  Jason M Gold; Andrew L Cohen; Richard Shiffrin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-08

5.  Unfamiliar faces are not faces: evidence from a matching task.

Authors:  Ahmed M Megreya; A Mike Burton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-06

6.  Individual differences in object recognition.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Andrew J Tomarken; Mackenzie A Sunday; Timothy J Vickery; Kaitlin F Ryan; R Jackie Floyd; David Sheinberg; Alan C-N Wong; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  The perception of a familiar face is no more than the sum of its parts.

Authors:  Jason M Gold; Jarrett D Barker; Shawn Barr; Jennifer L Bittner; Alexander Bratch; W Drew Bromfield; Roy A Goode; Mary Jones; Doori Lee; Aparna Srinath
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

8.  Are Faces Special to Infants? An Investigation of Configural and Featural Processing for the Upper and Lower Regions of Houses in 3- to 7-month-olds.

Authors:  Paul C Quinn; James W Tanaka; Kang Lee; Olivier Pascalis; Alan M Slater
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2013-01-30

9.  Process and domain specificity in regions engaged for face processing: an fMRI study of perceptual differentiation.

Authors:  Heather R Collins; Xun Zhu; Ramesh S Bhatt; Jonathan D Clark; Jane E Joseph
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  The categories, frequencies, and stability of idiosyncratic eye-movement patterns to faces.

Authors:  Joseph Arizpe; Vincent Walsh; Galit Yovel; Chris I Baker
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.