Visual search for orientation of faces by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): face-specific upright superiority and the role of facial configural properties
- 208 Downloads
A previous experiment showed that a chimpanzee performed better in searching for a target human face that differed in orientation from distractors when the target had an upright orientation than when targets had inverted or horizontal orientation [Tomonaga (1999a) Primate Res 15:215–229]. This upright superiority effect was also seen when using chimpanzee faces as targets but not when using photographs of a house. The present study sought to extend these results and explore factors affecting the face-specific upright superiority effect. Upright superiority was shown in a visual search for orientation when caricaturized human faces and dog faces were used as stimuli for the chimpanzee but not when shapes of a hand and chairs were presented. Thus, the configural properties of facial features, which cause an inversion effect in face recognition in humans and chimpanzees, were thought to be a source of the upright superiority effect in the visual search process. To examine this possibility, various stimuli manipulations were introduced in subsequent experiments. The results clearly show that the configuration of facial features plays a critical role in the upright superiority effect, and strongly suggest similarity in face processing in humans and chimpanzees.
This study and preparation of the manuscript were financially supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; Grant # 04710053, 05206113, 05710050, 07102010, 09207105, 10CE2005, 12002009, 13610086, 16002001, 16300084) and MEXT Grants-in-Aid for the 21st Century COE Program (A14 and D10). The author wishes to thank Drs. Tetsuro Matsuzawa and Masayuki Tanaka for their valuable comments on this study. Thanks are also due to Sumiharu Nagumo for his technical support and to Kiyonori Kumazaki, Norihiko Maeda, and the staff of the Center for Human Evolution Modeling Research of the Primate Research Institute (PRI) for their care of the chimpanzees.
- Johnson MH, Morton J (1991) Biology and cognitive development the case of face recognition. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Kuwahata H (2004) Comparative–cognitive studies on face recognition in primates. PhD dissertation, Kyoto University, JapanGoogle Scholar
- Kuwahata H, Fujita K, Ishikawa S, Myowa-Yamakoshi M, Tomonaga M, Tanaka M, Matsuzawa T (2003) Recognition of facial patterns in infant chimpanzees (in Japanese). In: Tomonaga M, Tanaka M, Matsuzawa (eds) Cognitive and behavioral development in chimpanzees: a comparative approach. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto pp 89–93Google Scholar
- Luria AR, Pravdina-Vinarskaya EN, Yarbus AL (1964) Eye movement mechanisms in normal and pathological vision. Sov Psychol Psychiatry 2:28–39Google Scholar
- Masuda S (2003) Effect of familiarity on visual search for faces (in Japanese). In: Proceedings of the 67th annual convention of the Japanese Psychological Association. Japanese Psychological Association, Tokyo, p 599Google Scholar
- Ochiai T, Matsuzawa T (1998) Planting trees in an outdoor compound of chimpanzees for an enriched environment. In: Hare VJ, Worley E (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference on environmental enrichment. The Shape of Enrichment, San Diego pp 355–364Google Scholar
- Perrett DI, Mistlin AJ (1990) Perception of facial characteristics by monkeys. In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA (eds) Comparative perception vol 2, Wiley, New York, pp 178–215Google Scholar
- Tomonaga M (2001a) Investigating visual perception and cognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) through visual search and related tasks: from basic to complex processes. In: Matsuzawa T (eds) Primate origin of human cognition and behavior. Springer, Tokyo, pp 55–86Google Scholar
- Tomonaga M (2001b) Visual search for biological motion patterns in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Psychologia 44:46–59Google Scholar