Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: Evidence from the face composite illusion

Journal of Vision

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Rossion, Bruno ^a   Boremanse, Adriano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Face composite illusion; Holistic processing; Picture plane rotation

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILLUSION; MALE; MEMORY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION DISORDER; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; REACTION TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; MALE; MEMORY; PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 42149139058     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/8.4.3     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Bartlett, J. C., & Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281-316.
2. Bartlett, J. C., Searcy, J. H., & Abdi, H. (2003). What are the routes to face recognition? In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 21-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Barton, J. J., Keenan, J. P., & Bass, T. (2001). Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 527-549.
4. Barton, J. J., Press, D. Z., Keenan, J. P., & O'Connor, M. (2002). Lesions of the fusiform face area impair perception of facial configuration in prosopagnosia. Neurology, 58, 71-78.
5. Bodamer, J. B. (1947). Die prosop-agnosie. (Die Agnosie des Physiognomieerkemens). Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 179, 6-54.
6. Bruyer, R., Galvez, C., & Prairial, C. (1993). Effect of disorientation on visual analysis, familiarity decision and semantic decision on faces. British Journal of Psycholoy, 84, 433-441.
7. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. Science, 195, 312-314.
8. Collishaw, S. M., & Hole, G. J. (2000). Featural and configurational processes in the recognition of faces of different familiarity. Perception, 29, 893-909.
9. Collishaw, S. M., Hole, G. J. (2002). Is there a linear or a nonlinear relationship between rotation and configural processing of faces? Perception, 31, 287-296.
10. de Heering, A., Rossion, B., Turati, C., & Simion, F. (2008). Holistic face processing can be independent of gaze behavior: Evidence from the face composite effect. Journal of Neuropsychology, 2, 183-195.
11. Delvenne, J. F., Seron, X., Coyette, F., & Rossion, B. (2004). Evidence for perceptual deficits in associative visual (prosop)agnosia: A single-case study. Neuropsychologia, 42, 597-612.
12. De Renzi, E. (1986). Current issues on prosopagnosia. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. G. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 243-252). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
13. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why face are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
14. Edmonds, A. J., & Lewis, M. B. (2007). The effect of rotation on configural encoding in a face-matching task. Perception, 36, 446-460.
15. Endo, M., Masame, K., & Maruyama, K. (1989). Interference from configuration of a schematic face onto the recognition of its constituent parts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 48, 97-106.
16. Farah, M. J. (1990). Visual Agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan.
20. Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are "spatial"-holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1023-1039.
21. Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2007). Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 995-1002.
22. Goldstein, A. G., & Chance, J. E. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory. Journal of Psychology, 105, 47-59.
23. Hillger, L. X., & Koenig, O. (1991). Separable Mechanisms in face processing: Evidence from hemispheric specialization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 42-58.
24. Hole, G. J. (1994). Configural factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65-74.
25. Hole, G. J., George, P. A., & Dunsmore, V. (1999). Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception, 28, 341-359.
26. Jacques, C., & Rossion, B. (2007). Early electrophysiological responses to multiple face orientations correlate with individual discrimination performance in humans. Neuroimage, 36, 863-876.
27. Jolicoeur, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems approach. Mind and Language, 5, 387-410.
28. Jolicoeur, P., Regehr, S., Smith, L. B. J. P., & Smith, G. N. (1985). Mental rotation of representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 100-129.
29. Lawson, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica, 102, 221-2245.
30. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 51, 449-473.
31. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53, 513-536.
32. Leder, H., Candrian, G., Huber, O., & Bruce, V. (2001). Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception, 30, 73-83.
33. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.
34. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2004). Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation. Psychological Science, 15, 762-768.
35. Leopold, D. A., O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 89-94.
36. Lewis, M. B. (2001). The Lady's not for turning: Rotation of the Thatcher illusion. Perception, 30, 769-774.
37. Logothetis, N. K., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 577-621.
38. Maurer, D., Grand, R. L., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255-260.
39. McKone, E. (2004). Isolating the special component of face recognition: Peripheral identification and a Mooney face. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30, 181-197.
40. McKone, E., Martini, P., & Nakayama, K. (2001) Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 573-599.
41. Michel, C., Rossion, B., Han, J., Chung, C. S., & Caldara, R. (2006). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one's own race. Psychological Science, 17, 608-615.
42. Murray, J. E., Yong, E., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11, 492-496.
43. Nachson, I., & Shechory, M. (2002). Effect of inversion on the recognition of external and internal facial features. Acta Psychologica, 109, 227-238.
44. Perrett, D. I., Oram, M. W., & Ashbridge, E. (1998). Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: An account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition, 67, 111-145.
45. Rakover, S. S., & Teucher, B. (1997). Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 752-761.
46. Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, 43-63.
47. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What's lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25-57.
48. Rhodes, G., Brennan, S., & Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 473-497.
49. Riesenhuber, M., Jarudi, I., Gilad, S., & Sinha, P. (2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, S448-S450.
50. Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2007). No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioral tasks. Cognition, 103, 34-79.
51. Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Acaddmic Press.
52. Rossion, B., & Gauthier, I. (2002). How does the brain process ugright and inverted faces? Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1, 63-75.
53. Schiltz, C., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. Neuroimage, 32, 1385-1394.
54. Schwaninger, A., & Mast, F. W. (2005). The face-inversion effect can be explained by the capacity limitations of an orientation normalization mechanism. Japanese Psychological Research, 47, 216-222.
55. Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., Gold, J. M., & Bennett, P. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14, 391-396.
56. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying facial perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
57. Sergent, J., & Signoret, J. L. (1992). Varieties of functional deficits in prosopagnosia. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 375-388.
58. Sjoberg, W., & Windes, J. (1992). Recognition times for rotated normal and "Thatcher" faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1176-1178.
59. Stürzel, F., & Spillmann, L. (2000). Thatcher illusion: Dependence on angle rotation. Perception, 29, 937-942.
60. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 46, 225-245.
61. Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J.A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583-592.
62. Tanaka, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
63. Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study of the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55-82.
64. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
65. Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483-484.
66. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471-491.
67. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 43, 161-204.
68. Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1988). Mental rotation of faces. Memory & Cognition, 16, 556-566.
69. Williams, C. C., & Henderson, J. M. (2007). The face inversion effect is not a consequence of aberrant eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1977-1985.
70. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.
71. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747-759.
72. Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889-898.