The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences
Considerable evidence suggests that qualitatively different processes are involved in the perception of faces and objects. According to a central hypothesis, the extraction of information about the spacing among face parts (e.g., eyes and mouth) is a primary function of face processing mechanisms that is dissociated from the extraction of information about the shape of these parts. Here, we used an individual-differences approach to test whether the shape of face parts and the spacing among them are indeed processed by dissociated mechanisms. To determine whether the pattern of findings that we reveal is unique for upright faces, we also presented similarly manipulated nonface stimuli. Subjects discriminated upright or inverted faces or houses that differed in parts or spacing. Only upright faces yielded a large positive correlation across subjects between performance on the spacing and part discrimination tasks. We found no such correlation for inverted faces or houses. Our findings suggest that face parts and spacing are processed by associated mechanisms, whereas the parts and spacing of nonface objects are processed by distinct mechanisms. These results may be consistent with the idea that faces are special, in that they are processed as nondecomposable wholes.
- Barton, J. J. S., 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.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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 & Performance, 33, 995–1002. CrossRef
- Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception, 13, 505–512. CrossRef
- Joubert, S., Felician, O., Barbeau, E., Sontheimer, A., Barton, J. J. [S.], Ceccaldi, M., & Poncet, M. (2003). Impaired configurational processing in a case of progressive prosopagnosia associated with predominant right temporal lobe atrophy. Brain, 126, 2537–2550. CrossRef
- Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 759–763. CrossRef
- Kemp, R., McManus, C., & Pigott, T. (1990). Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception, 19, 531–543. CrossRef
- Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890. CrossRef
- Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. CrossRef
- Maurer, D., O’Craven, K. M., Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Springer, M. V., Lewis, T. L., & Grady, C. L. (2007). Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1438–1451. CrossRef
- McKone, E., & Yovel, G. (2008, May). A single holistic representation of spacing and feature shape in faces. Poster presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, Naples, FL.
- 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. CrossRef
- Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25–57. CrossRef
- 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, 271, S448-S450. CrossRef
- Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2007). No face-like processing for objectsof-expertise in three behavioural tasks. Cognition, 103, 34–79. CrossRef
- Rotshtein, P., Geng, J. J., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1435–1452. CrossRef
- Russell, R., Sinha, P., Biederman, I., & Nederhouser, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35, 749–759. CrossRef
- Schiltz, C., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 32, 1385–1394. CrossRef
- Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.
- Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592. CrossRef
- Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759. CrossRef
- Yovel, G., & Duchaine, B. (2006). Specialized face perception mechanisms extract both part and spacing information: Evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 580–593. CrossRef
- Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889–898.
- Yovel, G., Paller, K. A., & Levy, J. (2005). A whole face is more than the sum of its halves: Interactive processing in face perception. Visual Cognition, 12, 337–352. CrossRef
- The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Volume 15, Issue 5 , pp 933-939
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links