Literature DB >> 15801600

Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision.

Maximilian Riesenhuber1, Izzat Jarudi, Sharon Gilad, Pawan Sinha.   

Abstract

Understanding how the human visual system recognizes objects is one of the key challenges in neuroscience. Inspired by a large body of physiological evidence, a general class of recognition models has emerged, which is based on a hierarchical organization of visual processing, with succeeding stages being sensitive to image features of increasing complexity. However, these models appear to be incompatible with some well-known psychophysical results. Prominent among these are experiments investigating recognition impairments caused by vertical inversion of images, especially those of faces. It has been reported that faces that differ 'featurally' are much easier to distinguish when inverted than those that differ 'configurally'; a finding that is difficult to reconcile with the physiological models. Here, we show that after controlling for subjects' expectations, there is no difference between 'featurally' and 'configurally' transformed faces in terms of inversion effect. This result reinforces the plausibility of simple hierarchical models of object representation and recognition in the cortex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15801600      PMCID: PMC1810084          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  15 in total

1.  Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing.

Authors:  R Le Grand; C J Mondloch; D Maurer; H P Brent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-04-19       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing.

Authors:  Catherine J Mondloch; Richard Le Grand; Daphne Maurer
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.490

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

Authors:  Allison B Sekuler; Carl M Gaspar; Jason M Gold; Patrick J Bennett
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-03-09       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 4.  Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex.

Authors:  D J Felleman; D C Van Essen
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Coding visual images of objects in the inferotemporal cortex of the macaque monkey.

Authors:  K Tanaka; H Saito; Y Fukada; M Moriya
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 6.  Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception.

Authors:  M Livingstone; D Hubel
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-05-06       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  What causes the face inversion effect?

Authors:  M J Farah; J W Tanaka; H M Drain
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Parts and wholes in face recognition.

Authors:  J W Tanaka; M J Farah
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1993-05

Review 9.  Visual object recognition.

Authors:  N K Logothetis; D L Sheinberg
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 12.449

10.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise.

Authors:  R Diamond; S Carey
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1986-06
View more
  41 in total

1.  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

2.  Recognition memory for realistic synthetic faces.

Authors:  Yuko Yotsumoto; Michael J Kahana; Hugh R Wilson; Robert Sekuler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-09

Review 3.  Interpreting fMRI data: maps, modules and dimensions.

Authors:  Hans P Op de Beeck; Johannes Haushofer; Nancy G Kanwisher
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 4.  Perspectives on science and art.

Authors:  Bevil R Conway; Margaret S Livingstone
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 5.  Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing.

Authors:  Elinor McKone; Galit Yovel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10

Review 6.  A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  Viewpoint invariance in the discrimination of upright and inverted faces.

Authors:  Alissa Wright; Jason J S Barton
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Beyond shape: how you learn about objects affects how they are represented in visual cortex.

Authors:  Alan C-N Wong; Thomas J Palmeri; Baxter P Rogers; John C Gore; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  From upright to upside-down presentation: a spatio-temporal ERP study of the parametric effect of rotation on face and house processing.

Authors:  Boutheina Jemel; Julie Coutya; Caroline Langer; Sylvain Roy
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 3.288

10.  The part task of the part-spacing paradigm is not a pure measurement of part-based information of faces.

Authors:  Qi Zhu; Xiaobai Li; Kari Chow; Jia Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.