What types of visual recognition tasks are mediated by the neural subsystem that subserves face recognition?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 684-698

  Brooks, Brian E ^a,b,c   Cooper, Eric E ^a,b  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Statistics Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence Iowa State University 2438 Osborn Dr Ames   (United States)

^c Building 235 3f 08 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Lateralization; Neural subsystems; Visual recognition

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BRAIN CORTEX; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FACE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; NERVE CELL NETWORK; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECALL; STUDENT; VISUAL FIELD;

ANIMALS; CEREBRAL CORTEX; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DOMINANCE, CEREBRAL; FACE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; NERVE NET; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; STUDENTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33746606575     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.684     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-cotnponents: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991). Object recognition and laterality: Null effects. Neuropsychologia, 29, 685-694.
3. Bornstein, B. (1963). Prosopagnosia. In L. Halpern (Ed.). Problems of dynamic neurology (pp. 283-318). Jerusalem, Israel: Hadassah Medical Organization.
4. Brooks, B. E., & Cooper, E. E. (1999). Differences in the coding of spatial relations in animal, produce, and object recognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
5. Brooks, B. E., & Cooper, E. E. (2001). What types of recognition tasks are mediated in the right cerebral hemisphere? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
6. Brooks, B. E., Rosielle, L. J., & Cooper, E. E. (2002). The priming of face recognition after metric transformations. Perception, 31, 297-313.
7. Bruyer, R., & Crispeels, G. (1992). Expertise in person recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 501-504.
8. Bryden, M. P., & Rainey, C. A. (1963). Left-right differences in tachistoscopic recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 568-571.
9. Bulthoff, H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of the United States of America, 89, 60-64.
10. Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain and. Cognition, 35, 239-258.
11. Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 480-489.
12. Cappa, S. F., Frugoni, M., Pasquali, P., Perani, D., & Zorat, F. (1998). Category-specific naming impairment for artifacts: A new case. Neurocase, 4, 391-397.
13. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1-34.
14. Cedrus Corporation. (1999). SuperLab Pro (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Author.
15. Chao, L. L., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 913-919.
16. Chao, L. L., Martin, A., & Haxby, J. V. (1999). Are face-responsive regions selective only for faces? NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 10, 2945-2950.
17. Cole, M., & Perez-Cruet, J. (1964). Prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 2, 237-246.
18. Cooper, E. E., & Brooks, B. E. (2004). Qualitative differences in the representation of spatial relations for different object classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 243-256.
19. Cooper, E. E., & Wojan, T. J. (2000). Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 470-488.
20. Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Van Hoesen, G. W. (1982). Prosopagnosia: Anatomic basis and behavioral mechanisms. Neurology, 32, 331-341.
21. Damasio. A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1990). Face agnosia and the neural substrates of memory. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 89-109.
22. Davidoff, J. (1982). Studies with nonverbal stimuli. In J. G. Beaumont (Ed.), Divided visual field studies of cerebral organization (pp. 29-55). New York: Academic Press.
23. de Gelder, B., & Rouw, R. (2000). Paradoxical configuration effects for faces and objects in prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1271-1279.
24. De Renzi, E. (1986). Prosopagnosia in two patients with CT scan evidence of damage confined to the right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 24, 385-389.
25. De Renzi, E., Perani, D., Carlesimo, G. A., & Silveri, M. C. (1994). Prosopagnosia can be associated with damage confined to the right hemisphere: An MRI and PET study and a review of the literature. Neuropsychologia, 32, 893-902.
26. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
27. Dickinson, S. J., Pentland, A. P., & Rosenfeld, A. (1993). 3-D shape recovery using distributed aspect matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14, 174-198.
28. Duchaine, B. C., Dingle, K., Nakayama, K., & Butterworth, E. (2004). Normal greeble learning in a severe case of developmental prosopagnosia. Neuron, 43, 469-473.
29. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2000). (Coarse coding of shape fragments) + (retinotopy) = Representation of structure. Spatial Vision, 13, 255-264.
30. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2003). Toward structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-109.
31. Edelman, S., & Weinshall, D. (1991). A self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3-D objects. Biological Cybernetics, 64, 209-219.
32. Ellis, H. D. (1983). The role of the right hemisphere in face perception. In A. W. Young (Ed.), Functions of the right cerebral hemisphere (pp. 33-64). New York: Academic Press.
33. Farah, M. J. (1992). Agnosia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2, 162-164.
34. Farah, M. J. (1995). Dissociable systems for visual recognition: A cognitive neuropsychology approach. In S. M. Kosslyn & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), Visual cognition (pp. 101-119). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Farah, M. J. Tanaka, J. W., & Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628-634.
36. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is "special" about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
37. Gauthier, I., Anderson, A. W., Tarr, M. J., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (1997). Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Current Biology, 7, 645-651.
38. Gauthier, I., Behrmann, M., & Tarr, M. J. (1999). Can face recognition really be dissociated from object recognition? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 349-370.
39. Gauthier, I., & Nelson, C. A. (2001). The development of face expertise. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 219-224.
40. Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, A. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 191-197.
41. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a 'Greeble' expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37, 1673-1682.
42. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2002). Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 431-446.
43. Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (1999). Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 568-573.
44. Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Moylan, J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (2000). Does visual subordinate-level categorisation engage the functionally defined fusiform face area? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 143-163.
45. Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Moylan, J., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, A. W. (2000). The fusiform "face area" is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 495-504.
46. Gauthier, I., Williams, P., Tarr, M. J., & Tanaka, J. (1998). Training 'greeble' experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38, 2401-2428.
47. Grill-Spector, K., Knouf, N., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 555-562.
48. Haxby, J. V., Ungerleider, L. G., Clark, V. P., Scheuten, J. L., Hoffman, E. A., & Martin, A. (1999). The effect of face in-version on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception. Neuron, 22, 189-199.
49. Hay, D. C., & Young, A. W. (1982). The human face. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 173-202). London: Academic Press.
50. Hillger, L. A., & Koenig, O. (1991). Separable mechanisms in face processing: Evidence from hemispheric specialization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 42-58.
51. Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: A double dissociation. Brain, 114, 2081-2094.
52. Hummel, J. E. (1994). Reference frames and relations in computational models of object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 111-116.
53. Hummel, J. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 157-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
55. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
56. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
57. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
58. Joseph, J. E. (2001). Functional neuroimaging studies of category specificity in object recognition: A critical review and meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 119-136.
59. Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 759-763.
60. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302-4311.
61. Kholmeyer, S. W. (1992). Picture perception lab: A program for picture experiments on the Macintosh II. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 24, 67-71.
62. Kimura, D., & Durnford, M. (1974). Normal studies on the function of the right hemisphere in vision. In S. J. Diamon & J. G. Beaumont (Eds.), Hemispheric function in the human brain (pp. 25-47). New York: Halstead.
63. Kosslyn, S. M., Koenig, O., Barrett, A., & Cave, C. B. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 723-735.
64. Laeng, B., Shah, J., & Kosslyn, S. (1999). Identifying objects in conventional and contorted poses: Contributions of hemisphere-specific mechanisms. Cognition, 70, 53-85.
65. Landis, T., Regard, M. Bliestle, A., & Kleihues, P. (1988). Prosopagnosia and agnosia for noncanonical views: An autopsied case. Brain, 111, 1287-1297.
66. Leehey, S., Carey, S., Diamond, R., & Cahn, A. (1978). Upright and inverted faces: The right hemisphere knows the difference. Cortex, 14, 411-419.
67. Levine, S. C., & Banich, M. T. (1982). Lateral asymmetries in the naming of words and corresponding line drawings. Brain and Language, 17, 34-45.
68. Levine, S. C., Banich, M. T., & Koch-Weser, M. P. (1988). Face recognition: A general or specific right hemisphere capacity? Brain and Cognition, 8, 303-325.
69. Loftus, G. R., & Loflus, E. F. (1988). Essence of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
70. Marsolek, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition. Psychological Science, 10, 111-118.
71. Marsolek, C. J. (2004). Abstractionist versus exemplar-based theories of visual word priming: A subsystems resolution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(A). 1233-1259.
72. Marsolek, C. J., Kosslyn, S. M., & Squire, L. R. (1992). Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 492-508.
73. Marsolek, C. J., Nicholas, C. D., & Schacter, D. L. (1996). Form-specific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere. Memory &. Cognition, 24, 539-556.
74. Marsolek, C. J., Schacter, D. L., & Nicholas, C. D. (1996). Form-specific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere. Memory &. Cognition, 24, 539-556.
75. McAuliffe, S. P., & Knowlton, B. J. (2001). Hemispheric differences in object identification. Brain and Cognition, 45, 119-128.
76. McCarthy, G., Puce, A., Gore, J. C., & Allison, T. (1997). Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 605-610.
77. McCarthy, R. A., & Warrington, E. K. (1988). Evidence for modalityspecific meaning systems in the brain. Nature, 334, 428-430.
78. McKeever, W. F., & Jackson, T. L., Jr. (1979). Cerebral dominance assessed by object- and color-naming latencies: Sex and familial sinistrality effects. Brain and Language, 7, 175-190.
79. McKone, E., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Does the human brain process objects of expertise like faces? A review of the evidence. In S. Dehaene. J. R. Duhamel, M. Hauser, & Rizzolatti (Eds.), From monkey brain to human brain (pp. 339-356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Montanes, P., Goldblum, M. C., & Boiler, F. (1995). The naming impairment of living and nonliving items in Alzheimer' s disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1, 39-48.
81. Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., & Behrmann, M. (1997). What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 555-604.
82. Newcombe, F. (1979). The processing of visual information in prosopagnosia and acquired dyslexia: Functional versus physiological interpretation. In D. J. Osbourne, M. M. Gruneberg, & J. E. Eiser (Eds.), Research in psychology and medicine (pp. 315-322). London: Academic Press.
83. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
84. Olshausen, B. A., Anderson, C. H., & Van Essen, D. C. (1993). A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recogni tion based on dynamic routing of information. Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 4700-4719.
85. Pallis, C. A. (1955). Impaired identification of faces and places withagnosia or colours. Report of a case due to cerebral embolism. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 18, 218-224.
86. Perani, D., Cappa, S. F., Bettinardi, V., & Bressi, S. (1995). Different neural systems for the recognition of animals and man-made tools. NeuroReport: An International Journal for the Rapid Communication of Research in Neuroscience, 6, 1637-1641.
87. Perani, D., Schnur, T., Tettamanti, M., Gorno Tempini, M., Cappa, S. F., & Fazio, F. (1999). Word and picture matching: A PET study of semantic category effects. Neuropsychologia, 37, 293-306.
88. Rhodes, G. (1993). Configural coding, expertise, and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 22, 19-41.
89. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Taylor, K., & Tan, S. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313-331.
90. Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). A case of integrative visual agnosia. Brain, 110, 1431-1462.
91. Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019-1025.
92. Rossion, B., Delvenne, J. F., Debatisse, D., Goffaux, V., Bruyer, R., Crommelinck, M., & Guerit, J. M. (1999). Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: An event-related potentials study. Biological Psychology, 50, 173-189.
93. Rossion, B., Dricot, L., Devolder, A., Bodart, J. M., Crommelinck, M., de Gelder, B., & Zoontjes, R. (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries for whole-based and part-based face processing in the human fusiform gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 793-802.
94. Sacchett, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: A category-specific deficit for artifactual objects and body parts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 73-86.
95. Sergent, J., Ohta, S., & MacDonald, B. (1992). Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. Brain, 115, 15-36.
96. Silveri, M. C., & Gainotti, G. (1988). Interaction between vision and language in category-specific semantic impairment. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 677-709.
97. Silveri, M. C., Gainotti, G., Perani, D., Cappelletti, J. Y., Carbone, G., & Fazio, F. (1997). Naming deficit for non-living items: Neuropsychological and PET study. Neuropsychologia, 35, 359-367.
98. Stankiewicz, B. J., & Hummel, J. F., (2002). Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape. Visual Cognition, 9, 719-739.
99. Stankiewicz, B. J., Hummel, J. E., & Cooper, E. E. (1998). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of object shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 732-744.
100. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46(A). 225-245.
101. Tarr, M. J., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
102. Tarr, M. J., & Gauthier, I. (2000). FFA: A flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 764-769.
103. Thoma, V., Davidoff, J., & Hummel, J. B. (2004). Evidence for holistic-representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 257-267.
104. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
105. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471-491.
106. Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1987). Categories of knowledge. Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain, 110, 1273-1296.
107. Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1994). Multiple meaning systems in the brain: A case for visual semantics. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1465-1473.
108. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829-854.
109. Whiteley, A. M., & Warrington, E. K. (1977). Prosopagnosia: A clinical, psychological, and anatomical study of three patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 40, 395-403.
110. Wyke, M., & Ettlinger, G. (1961). Efficiency of recognition in left and right visual fields: Its relation to the phenomenon of visual extinction. Neurology, 5, 659-665.
111. Xu, Y., Liu, J., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). The M170 is selective for faces, not for expertise. Neuropsychologia, 43, 588-597.
112. Yin, R. K. (1970). Face recognition by brain-injured patients: A dissociable ability? Neuropsychologia, 8, 395-402.
113. Young, A. W., Bion, P. J., & Ellis, A. W. (1980). Studies toward a model of laterality effects for picture and word naming. Brain and Language, 11, 54-65.