Abstract
Recognition of faces is more severely impaired by inversion than is recognition of other types of objects. This was originally interpreted as evidence for the existence of special face-recognition mechanisms. Recently, Diamond and Carey (1986) attributed the inversion effect to the use of second-order relational properties that are important for, but not unique to, face recognition. According to their hypothesis, face recognition differs from the recognition of most other objects in its dependence on second-order relational properties. This hypothesis was tested in two experiments by comparing the effects of inversion on the identification of dot patterns that differed in the extent to which they required the encoding of second-order relational properties. Identification of the second-order relational patterns was not more disrupted by inversion than was identification of first-order patterns. These results fail to support the hypothesis that second-order relational properties are responsible for the inversion effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bruce, V. (1988).Recognizing faces. London: Erlbaum.
Carey, S., &Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces.Science,195, 312–314.
DeRenzi, E. (1986). Current issues in prosopagnosia. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.),Aspects of face processing (pp. 243–251). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Diamond, R., &Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 107–117.
Ellis, H. D. (1975). Recognizing faces.British Journal of Psychology,66, 409–426.
Humphreys, G. W., &Bruce, V. (1989).Visual cognition: Computational, experimental, and neuropsychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morton, J., &Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition.Psychological Review,98, 164–181.
Posnee, M. I., &Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 353–363.
Scapinello, K. F., &Yarmey, A. D. (1970). The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli.Psychonomic Science,21, 329–331.
Tanaka, J. W., &Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology,23, 457–483.
Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,79, 471–491.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition.Acta Psychologica,61, 259–273.
Yarmey, A. D. (1971) Recognition memory for familiar “public” faces: Effects of orientation and delay.Psychonomic Science,24, 286–288.
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 141–145.
Yin, R. K. (1970). Face recognition by brain-injured patients: A dissociable ability?Neuropsychologia,8, 395–402.
Young, A. (1988). Functional organization of visual recognition. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.),Thought without language (pp. 78–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by ONR Contract N0014-89-J3016, NIH Grants NS23458 and NS06209, NIH RCDA K04N501405, and NIMH Training Grant T32-MN-19102-02.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanaka, J.W., Farah, M.J. Second-order relational properties and the inversion effect: Testing a theory of face perception. Perception & Psychophysics 50, 367–372 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212229
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212229