Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 933–939 | Cite as

The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences

Brief Reports
  • 323 Downloads

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception, 13, 505–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 759–763.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kemp, R., McManus, C., & Pigott, T. (1990). Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception, 19, 531–543.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2007). No face-like processing for objectsof-expertise in three behavioural tasks. Cognition, 103, 34–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Russell, R., Sinha, P., Biederman, I., & Nederhouser, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35, 749–759.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schiltz, C., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 32, 1385–1394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.Google Scholar
  21. Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889–898.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge

Personalised recommendations