A steady-state visual evoked potential approach to individual face perception: Effect of inversion, contrast-reversal and temporal dynamics

NeuroImage

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1585-1600

  Rossion, Bruno ^a   Prieto, Esther Alonso ^a   Boremanse, Adriano ^a   Kuefner, Dana ^a   Van Belle, Goedele ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

EEG; Face perception; Identity adaptation; N170; SSVEP

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FACE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FUSIFORM GYRUS; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT HANDEDNESS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STEADY STATE; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866302154     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.033     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Alonso Prieto E., Rossion B. Defining the fundamental stimulation frequency for individual face perception. J. Vis. 2011, 11. no. 11 article 643 (abstract). 10.1167/11.11.643.
2. Andrews T.J., Ewbank M.P. Distinct representations for facial identity and changeable aspects of faces in the human temporal lobe. Neuroimage 2004, 23:905-913.
3. Appelbaum L.G., Wade A.R., Vildavski V.Y., Pettet M.W., Norcia A.M. Cue-invariant networks for figure and background processing in human visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26:11695-11708.
4. Baylis G.C., Rolls E.T. Responses of neurons in the inferior temporal cortex in short term and serial recognition memory tasks. Exp. Brain Res. 1987, 65:614-622.
5. Bentin S., McCarthy G., Perez E., Puce A., Allison T. Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1996, 8:551-565.
6. Bruce V., Humphreys G.W. Recognizing objects and faces. Vis. Cognit. 1994, 1:141-180.
7. Bruce V., Langton S. The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces. Perception 1994, 23:803-822.
8. Bruce V., Young A. In the Eye of the Beholder: The Science of Face Perception 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9. Caharel S., d'Arripe O., Ramon M., Jacques C., Rossion B. Early adaptation to unfamiliar faces across viewpoint changes in the right hemisphere: evidence from the N170 ERP component. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47:639-643.
10. Caharel S., Jiang F., Blanz V., Rossion B. Recognizing an individual face: 3D shape contributes earlier than 2D surface reflectance information. Neuroimage 2009, 47:1809-1818.
11. The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception 2011, University Press, Oxford. A.J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M.H. Johnson, J.V. Haxby (Eds.).
12. Capilla A., Pazo-Alvarez P., Darriba A., Campo P., Gross J. Steady-state visual evoked potentials can be explained by temporal superposition of transient event-related responses. PLoS One 2011, 6(1):e14543.
13. Chen Y., Seth A.K., Gally J.A., Edelman G.M. The power of human brain magnetoencephalographic signals can be modulated up or down by changes in an attentive visual task. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003, 100:3501-3506.
14. Cottereau B.R., McKee S.P., Ales J.M., Norcia A.M. Disparity-tuned population responses from human visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 2011, 31:954-965.
15. Deffke I., Sander T., Heidenreich J., Sommer W., Curio G., Trahms L., Lueschow A. MEG/EEG sources of the 170-ms response to faces are co-localized in the fusiform gyrus. Neuroimage 2007, 35:1495-1501.
16. Desimone R. Face selective cells in the temporal cortex of monkeys. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1991, 3:1-8.
17. Di Russo F., Spinelli D. Effects of sustained, voluntary attention on amplitude and latency of steady-state visual evoked potential: a costs and benefits analysis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113:1771-1777.
18. Di Russo F., Pitzalis S., Aprile T., Spitoni G., Patria F., Stella A., Spinelli D., Hillyard S.A. Spatiotemporal analysis of the cortical sources of the steady-state visual evoked potential. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2007, 28:323-334.
19. Eimer M. The face-sensitive N170 component of the event-related brain potential. The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception 2011, 329-344. University Press, Oxford. A.J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. Johnson, J. Haxby (Eds.).
20. Ewbank M.P., Smith W.A., Hancock E.R., Andrews T.J. The M170 reflects a viewpoint-dependent representation for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. Cereb. Cortex 2008, 18:364-370.
21. Galambos R., Makeig S., Talmachoff P.J. A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1981, 78:2643-2647.
22. Galper R.E. Recognition of faces in photographic negative. Psychon. Sci. 1970, 19:207-208.
23. Galper R.E., Hochberg J. Recognition memory for photographs of faces. Am. J. Psychol. 1971, 84:351-354.
24. Gauthier I., Tarr M.J., Moylan J., Skudlarski P., Gore J.C., Anderson A.W. The fusiform "face area" is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2000, 12:495-504.
25. George N., Evans J., Fiori N., Davidoff J., Renault B. Brain events related to normal and moderately scrambled faces. Cogn. Brain Res. 1996, 4:65-76.
26. George N., Dolan R.J., Fink G.R., Baylis G.C., Russell C., Driver J. Contrast polarity and face recognition in the human fusiform gyrus. Nat. Neurosci. 1999, 2:574-580.
27. Giani A.S., Ortiz E., Belardinelli P., Kleiner M., Preissl H., Noppeney U. Steady-state responses in MEG demonstrate information integration within but not across the auditory and visual senses. Neuroimage 2012, 60:1478-1489.
28. Gilaie-Dotan S., Malach R. Sub-exemplar shape tuning in human face-related areas. Cereb. Cortex 2007, 17:325-338.
29. Gilaie-Dotan S., Gelbard-Sagiv H., Malach R. Perceptual shape sensitivity to upright and inverted faces is reflected in neuronal adaptation. Neuroimage 2010, 50:383-395.
30. Goffaux V., Rossion B., Sorger B., Schiltz C., Goebel R. Face inversion disrupts the perception of vertical relations between features in the right human occipito-temporal cortex. J. Neuropsychol. 2009, 3:45-67.
31. Grill-Spector K., Malach R. fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 2001, 107:293-321.
32. Grill-Spector K., Henson R., Martin A. Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10:14-23.
33. Gross C.G., Rocha-Miranda C.E., Bender D.B. Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the Macaque. J. Neurophysiol. 1972, 35:96-111.
34. Hajcak, G., Macnamara, A., Foti, D, Ferri, J., & Keil A., in press. The dynamic allocation of attention to emotion: Simultaneous and independent evidence from the late positive potential and steady state visual evoked potentials. Biol. Psychol.
35. Halgren E., Raij T., Marinkovic K., Jousmaki V., Hari R. Cognitive response profile of the human fusiform face area as determined by MEG. Cereb. Cortex 2000, 10:69-81.
36. Hayes T., Morrone M.C., Burr D.C. Recognition of positive and negative bandpass-filtered images. Perception 1986, 15:595-602.
37. Heinrich S.P., Bach M. Adaptation dynamics in pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials. Doc. Ophthalmol. 2001, 102:141-156.
38. Heisz J.J., Watter S., Shedden J.A. Automatic face identity encoding at the N170. Vision Res. 2006, 46:4604-4614.
39. Henson R.N., Rugg M.D. Neural response suppression, haemodynamic repetition effects, and behavioural priming. Neuropsychologia 2003, 41:263-270.
40. Hole G.J., George P.A., Dunsmore V. Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception 1999, 28:341-359.
41. Hsiao J.H.-W., Cottrell G. Two fixations suffice in face recognition. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19:998-1006.
42. Itier R.J., Taylor M.J. Inversion and contrast polarity reversal affect both encoding and recognition processes of unfamiliar faces: a repetition study using ERPs. Neuroimage 2002, 15:353-372.
43. Jacques C., Rossion B. The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. J. Vis. 2009, 9(6):1-16. 8.
44. Jacques C., d'Arripe O., Rossion B. The time course of the inversion effect during individual face discrimination. J. Vis. 2007, 7(8):1-9. 3.
45. Jiang F., Blanz V., O'Toole A.J. Probing the visual representation of faces with adaptation: a view from the other side of the mean. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17:493-500.
46. Jiang F., Dricot L., Righi G., Tarr M.J., Goebel R., Weber J., et al. Face categorization in visual scenes may start in a higher order area of the right fusiform gyrus, evidence from dynamic visual stimulation in neuroimaging. J. Neurophysiol. 2011, 106:2720-2736.
47. Johnston A., Hill H., Carman N. Recognising faces: effects of lighting direction, inversion, and brightness reversal. Perception 1992, 21:365-375.
48. Kemp R., McManus C., Pigott T. Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception 1990, 19:531-543.
49. Kemp R., Pike G., White P., Musselman A. Perception and recognition of normal and negative faces: the role of shape from shading and pigmentation cues. Perception 1996, 25:37-52.
50. Kiani R., Esteky H., Tanaka K. Differences in onset latency of macaque inferotemporal neural responses to primate and non-primate faces. J. Neurophysiol. 2005, 94:1587-1596.
51. Kohn A. Visual adaptation: physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. J. Neurophysiol. 2007, 97:3155-3164.
52. Krekelberg B., Boynton G.M., vanWezel R.J.A. Adaptation: from single cells to BOLD signals. Trends Neurosci. 2006, 29:250-256.
53. Kuefner D., Jacques C., Prieto E.A., Rossion B. Electrophysiological correlates of the composite face illusion: disentangling perceptual and decisional components of holistic face processing in the human brain. Brain Cogn. 2010, 74:225-238.
54. Leopold D.A., Rhodes G., Müller K.M., Jeffery L. The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces. Proc. R. Soc. B 2005, 272:897-904.
55. Leopold D.A., Bondar I.V., Giese M.A. Norm-based face encoding by single neurons in the monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature 2006, 442:572-575.
56. Lewis M.B., Edmonds A.J. Face detection: mapping human performance. Perception 2003, 32:903-920.
57. Lewis M.B., Johnston R.A. The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption. Perception 1997, 26:225-227.
58. Liang M., Mouraux A., Chan V., Blakemore C., Iannetti G.D. Functional characterisation of sensory ERPs using probabilistic ICA: effect of stimulus modality and stimulus location. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2010, 21:577-587.
59. Liu C.H., Collin C.A., Burton A.M., Chaudhuri A. Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative. Vision Res. 1999, 39:4003-4009.
60. Martens U., Schweinberger S.R., Kiefer M., Burton A.M. Masked and unmasked electrophysiological repetition effects of famous faces. Brain Res. 2006, 1109:146-157.
61. Mazard A., Schiltz C., Rossion B. Recovery from adaptation to facial identity is larger for upright than inverted faces in the human occipito-temporal cortex. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44:912-922.
62. Miller E.K., Li L., Desimone R. A neural mechanism for working and recognition memory in inferior temporal cortex. Science 1991, 254:1377-1379.
63. Morgan S.T., Hansen J.C., Hillyard S.A. Selective attention to stimulus location modulates the steady state visual evoked potential. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1996, 93:4770-4774.
64. Mouraux A., Iannetti G.D. Across-trial averaging of event-related EEG responses and beyond. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2008, 26:1041-1054.
65. Müller M.M., Andersen S., Trujillo N.J., Valdés-Sosa P., Malinowski P., Hillyard S.A. Feature-selective attention enhances color signals in early visual areas of the human brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103:14250-14254.
66. Noguchi Y., Inui K., Kakigi R. Temporal dynamics of neural adaptation effect in the human visual ventral stream. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24:6283-6290.
67. O'Toole A.J., Vetter T., Blanz V. Two-dimensional reflectance and three-dimensional shape contributions to recognition of faces across viewpoint. Vision Res. 1999, 39:3145-3155.
68. Orban de Xivry J.-J., Ramon M., Lefèvre P., Rossion B. Reduced fixation on the upper area of personally familiar faces following acquired prosopagnosia. J. Neuropsychol. 2008, 2:245-268.
69. Peachey N.S., DeMarco P.J., Ubilluz R., Yee W. Short-term changes in the response characteristics of the human visual evoked potential. Vision Res. 1994, 34:2823-2831.
70. Perrett D.I., Mistlin A.J., Chitty A.J., Smith P.A., Potter D.D., Broennimann R., et al. Specialized face processing and hemispheric asymmetry in man and monkey: evidence from single unit and reaction time studies. Behav. Brain Res. 1988, 29:245-258.
71. Perrett D.I., Oram M.W., Ashbridge E. Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition 1998, 67:111-145.
72. Phillips R.J. Why are faces hard to recognize in photographic negative. Percept. Psychophys. 1972, 12:425-426.
73. Regan D. Some characteristics of average steady-state and transient responses evoked by modulated light. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1966, 20:238-248.
74. Regan D. Human Brain Electrophysiology: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine 1989, Elsevier, New York.
75. Regan D. Some early uses of evoked brain responses in investigations of human visual function. Vision Res. 2009, 49:882-897.
76. Ringo J.L. Stimulus specific adaptation in inferior temporal and medial temporal cortex of the monkey. Behav. Brain Res. 1996, 76:191-197.
77. Rolls E.T., Tovee M.J. Sparseness of the neuronal representation of stimuli in the primate temporal visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 1995, 73:713-726.
78. Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychol. 2008, 128:274-289.
79. Rossion B. Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: the perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychol. 2009, 132:300-312.
80. Rossion B., Boremanse A. Robust sensitivity to facial identity in the right human occipito-temporal cortex as revealed by steady-state visual-evoked potentials. J. Vision 2011, 11(2). 16, 1-21.
81. Rossion B., Caharel S. ERP evidence for the speed of face categorization in the human brain: disentangling the contribution of low-level visual cues from face perception. Vision Res. 2011, 51:1297-1311.
82. Rossion B., Jacques C. Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face preferential responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170. Neuroimage 2008, 39:1959-1979.
83. Rossion B., Jacques C. The N170: understanding the time-course of face perception in the human brain. The Oxford Handbook of ERP Components 2011, 115-142. University Press, Oxford. S. Luck, E. Kappenman (Eds.).
84. Rossion B., Delvenne J.-F., Debatisse D., Goffaux V., Bruyer R., Crommelinck M., Guérit J.-M. Spatio-temporal brain localization of the face inversion effect. Biol. Psychol. 1999, 50:173-189.
85. Rossion B., Joyce C.J., Cottrell G.W., Tarr M.J. Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word and object processing in the visual cortex. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1609-1624.
86. Rousselet G.A., Macé M.J.-M., Fabre-Thorpe M. Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes. J. Vis. 2003, 3(6):440-455.
87. Rousselet G.A., Husk J.S., Bennett P.J., Sekuler A.B. Single-trial EEG dynamics of object and face visual processing. Neuroimage 2007, 36:843-862.
88. Russell R., Sinha P., Biederman I., Nederhouser M. Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception 2006, 35:749-759.
89. Russell R., Biederman I., Nederhouser M., Sinha P. The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces. Vision Res. 2007, 47:157-165.
90. Santarelli R., Maurizi M., Conti G., Ottaviani F., Paludetti G., et al. Generation of human auditory steady-state responses (SSRs). II: Addition of responses to individual stimuli. Hear. Res. 1995, 83:9-18.
91. Sawamura H., Orban G.A., Vogels R. Selectivity of neuronal adaptation does not match response selectivity: a single-cell study of the FMRI adaptation paradigm. Neuron 2006, 49:307-318.
92. Schiltz C., Rossion B. Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. Neuroimage 2006, 32:1385-1394.
93. Schiltz C., Sorger B., Caldara R., Ahmed F., Mayer E., Goebel R., Rossion B. Impaired face discrimination in acquired prosopagnosia is associated with abnormal response to individual faces in the right middle fusiform gyrus. Cereb. Cortex 2006, 16:574-586.
94. Schweinberger S.R., Pfutze E.M., Sommer W. Repetition priming and associative priming of face recognition - evidence from event-related potentials. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1995, 21:722-736.
95. Schweinberger S.R., Pickering E.C., Jentzsch I., Burton A.M., Kaufmann J.M. Event-related brain potential evidence for a response of inferior temporal cortex to familiar face repetitions. Cogn. Brain Res. 2002, 14:398-409.
96. Srinivasan R., Russell D.P., Edelman G.M., Tononi G. Increased synchronization of neuromagnetic responses during conscious perception. J. Neurosci. 1999, 19:5435-5448.
97. Srinivasan R., Bibi F.A., Nunez P.L. Steady-state visual evoked potentials: distributed local sources and wave-like dynamics are sensitive to flicker frequency. Brain Topogr. 2006, 18:167-187.
98. Sutoyo D., Srinivasan R. Nonlinear SSVEP responses are sensitive to the perceptual binding of visual hemifields during conventional 'eye' rivalry and interocular 'percept' rivalry. Brain Res. 2009, 1251:245-255.
99. Tanskanen T., Nasanen R., Montez T., Paallysaho J., Hari R. Face recognition and cortical responses show similar sensitivity to noise spatial frequency. Cereb. Cortex 2005, 15:526-534.
100. Taubert J., Alais D. Identity aftereffects, but not composite effects, are contingent on contrast polarity. Perception 2011, 40:422-436.
101. Victor J.D., Conte M.M. Two-frequency analysis of interactions elicited by Vernier stimuli. Vis. Neurosci. 2000, 17:959-973.
102. Vizioli L., Rousselet G.A., Caldara R. Neural repetition suppression to identity is abolished by other-race faces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107:20081-20086.
103. White M. Effect of photographic negation on matching the expressions and identities of faces. Perception 2001, 30:969-981.
104. Winston J.S., Henson R.N., Fine-Goulden M.R., Dolan R.J. fMRI-adaptation reveals dissociable neural representations of identity and expression in face perception. J. Neurophysiol. 2004, 92:1830-1839.
105. Yin R.K. Looking at upside-down faces. J. Exp. Psychol. 1969, 81:141-145.
106. Young M.P., Yamane S. Sparse population coding of faces in the inferotemporal cortex. Science 1992, 256:1327-1331.
107. Yovel G., Kanwisher N. The neural basis of the behavioral face-inversion effect. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:2256-2262.
108. Zemon V., Ratliff F. Intermodulation components of the visual evoked potential: responses to lateral and superimposed stimuli. Biol. Cybern. 1984, 50:401-408.