Literature DB >> 18926984

The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: evidence from individual differences.

Galit Yovel1, Nancy Kanwisher.   

Abstract

Considerable evidence suggests that qualitatively different processes are involved in the perception of faces and objects. According to a central hypothesis, the extraction of information about the spacing among face parts (e.g., eyes and mouth) is a primary function of face processing mechanisms that is dissociated from the extraction of information about the shape of these parts. Here, we used an individual-differences approach to test whether the shape of face parts and the spacing among them are indeed processed by dissociated mechanisms. To determine whether the pattern of findings that we reveal is unique for upright faces, we also presented similarly manipulated nonface stimuli. Subjects discriminated upright or inverted faces or houses that differed in parts or spacing. Only upright faces yielded a large positive correlation across subjects between performance on the spacing and part discrimination tasks. We found no such correlation for inverted faces or houses. Our findings suggest that face parts and spacing are processed by associated mechanisms, whereas the parts and spacing of nonface objects are processed by distinct mechanisms. These results may be consistent with the idea that faces are special, in that they are processed as nondecomposable wholes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18926984      PMCID: PMC2739721          DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.933

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  22 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

Review 2.  Domain specificity in face perception.

Authors:  N Kanwisher
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images.

Authors:  R Kemp; C McManus; T Pigott
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.490

4.  Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation.

Authors:  Richard Russell; Pawan Sinha; Irving Biederman; Marissa Nederhouser
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing.

Authors:  D Maurer; K M O'Craven; R Le Grand; C J Mondloch; M V Springer; T L Lewis; C L Grady
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence.

Authors:  A Freire; K Lee; L A Symons
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.490

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

Authors:  Maximilian Riesenhuber; Izzat Jarudi; Sharon Gilad; Pawan Sinha
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Impaired configurational processing in a case of progressive prosopagnosia associated with predominant right temporal lobe atrophy.

Authors:  Sven Joubert; Olivier Felician; Emmanuel Barbeau; Anna Sontheimer; Jason J Barton; Mathieu Ceccaldi; Michel Poncet
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2003-09-23       Impact factor: 13.501

9.  What Is Special about Face Recognition? Nineteen Experiments on a Person with Visual Object Agnosia and Dyslexia but Normal Face Recognition.

Authors:  M Moscovitch; G Winocur; M Behrmann
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data.

Authors:  Pia Rotshtein; Joy J Geng; Jon Driver; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.225

View more
  14 in total

1.  Word inversion sensitivity as a marker of visual word form area lateralization: An application of a novel multivariate measure of laterality.

Authors:  Brandon J Carlos; Elizabeth A Hirshorn; Corrine Durisko; Julie A Fiez; Marc N Coutanche
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-02-23       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  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

3.  Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model.

Authors:  Sam S Rakover
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-08

Review 4.  The composite face illusion.

Authors:  Jennifer Murphy; Katie L H Gray; Richard Cook
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-04

5.  Perception of face parts and face configurations: an FMRI study.

Authors:  Jia Liu; Alison Harris; Nancy Kanwisher
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Two independent mechanisms for motion-in-depth perception: evidence from individual differences.

Authors:  Harold T Nefs; Louise O'Hare; Julie M Harris
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-10-12

7.  Hemispheric asymmetry in discriminating faces differing for featural or configural (second-order relations) aspects.

Authors:  Zaira Cattaneo; Chiara Renzi; Silvia Bona; Lotfi B Merabet; Claus-Christian Carbon; Tomaso Vecchi
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04

8.  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

9.  New tests to measure individual differences in matching and labelling facial expressions of emotion, and their association with ability to recognise vocal emotions and facial identity.

Authors:  Romina Palermo; Kirsty B O'Connor; Joshua M Davis; Jessica Irons; Elinor McKone
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The fusiform face area is engaged in holistic, not parts-based, representation of faces.

Authors:  Jiedong Zhang; Xiaobai Li; Yiying Song; Jia Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.