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

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 271, Issue SUPPL. 6, 2004, Pages

  Riesenhuber, Maximilian ^a,b,c   Jarudi, Izzat ^b   Gilad, Sharon ^b   Sinha, Pawan ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational neuroscience; Faces; Inversion effect; Neuroscience; Object recognition; Psychophysics

Indexed keywords

RECOGNITION; VISION;

ARTICLE; FACE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MODEL; NEUROSCIENCE; OBJECT RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RECOGNITION; VISION;

EID: 17044366639     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0216     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Blanz, V. & Vetter, T. 1999 A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In SIGGRAPH '99, pp. 187-194. New York: ACM Computer Society Press.
2. Carey, S. & Diamond, R. 1986 Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115, 107-117.
3. Farah, M. J., Tanaka, J. W. & Drain, H. M. 1995 What causes the face inversion effect? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 628-634.
4. Felleman, D. J. & Van Essen, D. C. 1991 Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex 1, 1-47.
5. Freire, A., Lee, K. & Symons, L. A. 2000 The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence. Perception 29, 159-170.
6. Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. 1962 Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. J. Physiol. 160, 106-154.
7. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D. & Brent, H. P. 2001 Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing. Nature 410, 890.
8. Livingstone, M. S. & Hubel, D. H. 1988 Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science 240, 740-749.
9. Logothetis, N. K. & Sheinberg, D. L. 1996 Visual object recognition. A. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 577-621.
10. Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R. & Maurer, D. 2002 Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception 31, 553-566.
11. Riesenhuber, M. & Poggio, T. 1999 Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neurosci. 2, 1019-1025.
12. Sekuler, A. B., Caspar, C. M., Gold, J. M. & Bennett, P. J. 2004 Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Curr. Biol. 14, 391-396.
13. Selfridge, O. G. 1959 Pandemonium: a paradigm for learning. In Mechanisation of thought processes: proceedings of a symposium held at the National Physics Laboratory (ed. D. Blake & A. Uttley), pp. 511-529. London: HMSQ.
14. Tanaka, J. W. & Farah, M. J. 1993 Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 46, 225-245.
15. Tanaka, K. 2003 Columns for complex visual object features in the inferotemporal cortex: clustering of cells with similar but slightly different stimulus selectivities. Cerebr. Cortex 13, 90-99.
16. Tanaka, K., Saito, H., Fukada, Y. & Moriya, M. 1991 Coding visual images of objects in the inferotemporal cortex of the macaque monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 66, 170-189.
17. Tso, D. Y., Roe, A. W. & Gilbert, C. D. 2001 A hierarchy of the functional reorganization for color, form, and disparity in primate visual area V2. Vision Res. 41, 1333-1349.
18. Yin, R. K. 1969 Looking at upside-down faces. J. Exp. Psychol. 81, 141-145.
19. Zeki, S. 1993 Vision of the brain. Oxford UK: Blackwell Science.