Literature DB >> 19815323

Visual expertise does not predict the composite effect across species: a comparison between spider (Ateles geoffroyi) and rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys.

Jessica Taubert1, Lisa A Parr.   

Abstract

Humans are subject to the composite illusion: two identical top halves of a face are perceived as "different" when they are presented with different bottom halves. This observation suggests that when building a mental representation of a face, the underlying system perceives the whole face, and has difficulty decomposing facial features. We adapted a behavioural task that measures the composite illusion to examine the perception of faces in two nonhuman species. Specifically we had spider (Ateles geoffroyi) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) perform a two-forced choice, match-to-sample task where only the top half of sample was relevant to the task. The results of Experiment 1 show that spider monkeys (N=2) process the faces of familiar species (conspecifics and humans, but not chimpanzees, sheep, or sticks), holistically. The second experiment tested rhesus monkeys (N=7) with the faces of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, sheep, and sticks. Contrary to prediction, there was no evidence of a composite effect in the human (or familiar primate) condition. Instead, we present evidence of a composite illusion in the chimpanzee condition (an unfamiliar primate). Together, these experiments show that visual expertise does not predict the composite effect across the primate order.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19815323      PMCID: PMC2783790          DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  44 in total

1.  Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives.

Authors:  G J Hole; P A George; V Dunsmore
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.490

2.  Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation.

Authors:  Richard Le Grand; Catherine J Mondloch; Daphne Maurer; Henry P Brent
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-11

3.  A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis.

Authors:  Erin M Ingvalson; Michael J Wenger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-01

Review 4.  Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?

Authors:  Elinor McKone; Nancy Kanwisher; Bradley C Duchaine
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates.

Authors:  Federica Amici; Filippo Aureli; Josep Call
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  Plasticity of face processing in infancy.

Authors:  O Pascalis; L S Scott; D J Kelly; R W Shannon; E Nicholson; M Coleman; C A Nelson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-03-24       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces.

Authors:  Yoichi Sugita
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-01-02       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Chimpanzee faces are 'special' to humans.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Human and chimpanzee face recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): role of exposure and impact on categorical perception.

Authors:  Julie Martin-Malivel; Kazunori Okada
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.912

10.  Two fixations suffice in face recognition.

Authors:  Janet Hui-wen Hsiao; Garrison Cottrell
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-10
View more
  9 in total

1.  Face Pareidolia in the Rhesus Monkey.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; Susan G Wardle; Molly Flessert; David A Leopold; Leslie G Ungerleider
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 10.834

2.  The composite face effect in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; Annum A Qureshi; Lisa A Parr
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 2.231

3.  A comparative study of face processing using scrambled faces.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; David Aagten-Murphy; Lisa A Parr
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 4.  The evolution of face processing in primates.

Authors:  Lisa A Parr
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  The inversion effect reveals species differences in face processing.

Authors:  Lisa A Parr
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2011-07-23

6.  Geometric distortions affect face recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; Lisa A Parr
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Intranasal oxytocin selectively modulates the behavior of rhesus monkeys in an expression matching task.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert; Molly Flessert; Ning Liu; Leslie G Ungerleider
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  The evolution of holistic processing of faces.

Authors:  Darren Burke; Danielle Sulikowski
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-01-31

9.  Body inversion effect in monkeys.

Authors:  Toyomi Matsuno; Kazuo Fujita
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.