Abstract
All primates can recognize faces and do so by analyzing the subtle variation that exists between faces. Through a series of three experiments, we attempted to clarify the nature of second-order information processing in nonhuman primates. Experiment one showed that both chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) tolerate geometric distortions along the vertical axis, suggesting that information about absolute position of features does not contribute to accurate face recognition. Chimpanzees differed from monkeys, however, in that they were more sensitive to distortions along the horizontal axis, suggesting that when building a global representation of facial identity, horizontal relations between features are more diagnostic of identity than vertical relations. Two further experiments were performed to determine whether the monkeys were simply less sensitive to horizontal relations compared to chimpanzees or were instead relying on local features. The results of these experiments confirm that monkeys can utilize a holistic strategy when discriminating between faces regardless of familiarity. In contrast, our data show that chimpanzees, like humans, use a combination of holistic and local features when the faces are unfamiliar, but primarily holistic information when the faces become familiar. We argue that our comparative approach to the study of face recognition reveals the impact that individual experience and social organization has on visual cognition.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barton JJ, Keenan JP, Bass T (2001) Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: effects of inversion and viewing duration. Br J Psychol 92:527–549
Bentin S, Deouell LY (2000) Structural encoding and identification in face processing: ERP evidence for separate mechanisms. Cogn Neuropsychol 17:35–54
Bindemann M, Burton AM, Leuthold H, Schweinberger SR (2008) Event-related potentials of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. Psychophysiology 45:535–544
Brooks BE, Rosielle LJ, Cooper EE (2002) The priming of face recognition after metric transformations. Perception 31:297–313
Bruce V, Young A (1986) Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol 77:305–327
Bruce V, Henderson Z, Greenwood K, Hancock P, Burton AM, Miller P (1999) Verification of face identities from images captured on video. J Exp Psychol Appl 5:339–360
Bruce V, Henderson Z, Newman C, Burton AM (2001) Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. J Exp Psychol Appl 7:207–218
Burton AM, Jenkins R, Hancock PJB, White D (2005) Robost representations for face recognition: the power of averages. Cogn Psychol 51:256–284
Clutterbuck R, Johnson RA (2002) Demonstrating how unfamiliar faces become familiar using a face matching task. Eur J Cogn Psychol 17:97–116
Dahl CD, Logothetis NK, Hoffman KL (2007) Individuation and holistic processing of faces in rhesus monkeys. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2069–2076
Davidoff J, Donnelly N (1990) Object superiority: a comparison of complete and part probes. Acta Psychol 73:225–243
Goffaux V, Rossion B (2006) Faces are “spatial”—Holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:1023–1039
Goffaux V, Rossion B (2007) Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:995–1002
Gothard KM, Brooks KN, Peterson MA (2009) Multiple perceptual strategies used by macaque monkeys for face recognition. Anim Cogn 12:155–167
Haig ND (1984) The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception 13:505–512
Hancock PJB, Bruce V, Burton AM (2000) Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn Sci 4:330–337
Hole GJ (1994) Configural factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception 23:65–74
Hole GJ, George PA, Eaves K, Rasek A (2002) Effects of geometric distortions on face recognition performance. Perception 31:1221–1240
Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ, Maurer D, Brent HP (2004) Impairment in holistic processing following early visual deprivation. Psychol Sci 15:762–768
Megreya AM, Bindemann M (2009) Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: the headscarf effect. Perception 38:1831–1848
Megreya AM, Burton AM (2006) Unfamiliar faces are not faces: evidence from a matching task. Mem Cogn 34:865–876
Neiworth JJ, Hassett JM, Sylvester CM (2007) Face processing in humans and new world monkeys: the influence of experiential and ecological factors. Anim Cogn 10:125–134
O’Toole AJ, Vetter T, Blanz V (1999) Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: an application of three-dimensional morphing. Vis Res 39:3145–3155
Parr LA, Heintz M (2008) Discrimination of faces and houses by rhesus monkeys: the role of stimulus expertise and rotation angle. Anim Cogn 11:467–474
Parr LA, Dove T, Hopkins WD (1998) Why faces may be special: evidence of the inversion effect in chimpanzees. J Cogn Neurosci 10:615–622
Parr LA, Winslow JT, Hopkins WD, de Waal FBM (2000) Recognizing facial cues: individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol 114:47–60
Parr LA, Heintz M, Akamagwuna U (2006) Three studies of configural face processing by chimpanzees. Brain Cogn 62:30–42
Parr LA, Heintz M, Pradhan G (2008) Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) lack face expertise. J Comp Psychol 122:390–402
Rhodes G, Hayward WG, Winkler C (2006) Expert face coding: Configural and component coding of own-face and other-race faces. Psychon Bull Rev 13:499–505
Rossion B (2008) Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes to face perception. Acta Psychol 128:274–289
Rossion B (2009) Distinguishing cause and consequence of face inversion: the perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychol 132:300–312
Sergent J (1984) An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. Br J Psychol 75:221–242
Sripati AP, Olson CR (2009) Representing the forest before the trees: a global advantage effect in monkey inferotemporal cortex. J Neurosci 29:7788–7796
Sugita Y (2008) Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:394–398
Tanaka JW, Farah MJ (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A 46:225–245
Tanaka JW, Sengco J (1997) Features and their configuration in face recognition. Mem Cogn 25:583–592
Taubert J, Parr LA (2009) Visual expertise does not predict the composite effect across species: a comparison between spider (Ateles geoffroyi) and rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys. Brain Cogn 71:187–195
Tomonaga M (1994) How laboratory-raised Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata) perceive rotated photographs of monkeys: evidence for an inversion effect in face perception. Primates 35:155–165
Tomonaga M (2007) Visual search for orientation of faces by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): face-specific upright superiority and the role of configural properties of faces. Primates 48:1–12
Tomonaga M, Itakura S, Matsuzawa T (1993) Superiority of conspecific faces and reduced inversion effect in face perception by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Folia Primatol 61:110–114
Vermeire BA, Hamilton CR (1998) Inversion effect for faces in split-brain monkeys. Neuropsyologia 36:1003–1014
Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81:141–145
Young AW, Hellawell D, Hay DC (1987) Configural information in face perception. Perception 16:747–759
Acknowledgments
This investigation was supported by RR-00165 from the NIH/NCRR to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and R01-MH068791 to LA Parr. We thank Erin Siebert, Kimberly Baldesare and Daniel Brubaker for their expertise and help collecting data. We also acknowledge the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers that improved an earlier version of this manuscript. Finally, we thank our subjects and especially our friend, Jarred.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taubert, J., Parr, L.A. Geometric distortions affect face recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim Cogn 14, 35–43 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0341-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0341-x