Putting a Name to a Face: The Role of Name Labels in the Formation of Face Memories

Although previous research in ERPs has focused on the conditions under which faces are recognized, less research has focused on the process by which face representations are acquired and maintained. In Experiment 1, participants were required to monitor for a target “Joe” face that was shown among a series of nontarget “Other” faces. At the halfway point, participants were instructed to switch targets from the Joe face to a previous nontarget face that is now labeled “Bob.” The ERP analysis focused on the posterior N250 component known to index face familiarity and the P300 component associated with context updating and response decision. Results showed that, in the first half of the experiment, there was increase in N250 negativity to the target Joe face compared with the nontarget Bob and designated Other face. In the second half of the experiment, an enhanced N250 negativity was produced to the now-target Bob face compared with the Other face. Critically, the enhanced N250 negativity to the Joe face was maintained, although Joe was no longer the target. The P300 component followed a similar pattern of brain response, where the Joe face elicited a significantly larger P300 amplitude than the Other face and the Bob face. In the Bob half of the experiment, the Bob face elicited a reliably larger P300 than the Other faces, and the heightened P300 to the Joe face was sustained. In Experiment 2, we examined whether the increased N250 and P300 to Joe was because of simple naming effects. Participants were introduced to both Joe and Bob faces and names at the beginning of the experiment. In the first half of the experiment, participants monitored for the target Joe face and at the halfway point, they were instructed to switch targets to the Bob face. Findings show that N250 negativity significantly increased to the Joe face relative to the Bob and Other faces in the first half of the experiment and an enhanced N250 negativity was found for the target Bob face and the nontarget Joe face in the second half. An increased P300 amplitude was demonstrated to the target Joe and Bob faces in the first and second halves of the experiment, respectively. Importantly, the P300 amplitude elicited by the Joe face equaled the P300 amplitude to the Bob face, although it was no longer the target face. The findings from Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that the N250 component is not solely determined by name labeling, exposure, or task relevancy, but it is the combination of these factors that contribute to the acquisition of enduring face representations.

[1]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Activation of Preexisting and Acquired Face Representations: The N250 Event-related Potential as an Index of Face Familiarity , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Werner Sommer,et al.  ERP components reflecting stimulus identification: contrasting the recognition potential and the early repetition effect (N250r). , 2005, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[3]  L. Deouell,et al.  STRUCTURAL ENCODING AND IDENTIFICATION IN FACE PROCESSING: ERP EVIDENCE FOR SEPARATE MECHANISMS , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[4]  C. Jacques,et al.  The time course of visual competition to the presentation of centrally fixated faces. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[5]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Lara J Pierce,et al.  The neural plasticity of other-race face recognition , 2009, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[7]  M. Tarr,et al.  The N170 occipito‐temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face‐specific processes in the human brain , 2000, Neuroreport.

[8]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[9]  A. Burton,et al.  Matching faces for semantic information and names: an event-related brain potentials study. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[10]  G. Cohen,et al.  Memory for proper names: age differences in retrieval , 1986 .

[11]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  The role of category learning in the acquisition and retention of perceptual expertise: A behavioral and neurophysiological study , 2008, Brain Research.

[12]  Axel Mecklinger,et al.  Priming Visual Face-Processing Mechanisms: Electrophysiological Evidence , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  A Reevaluation of the Electrophysiological Correlates of Expert Object Processing , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  E Donchin,et al.  The time constant in P300 recording. , 1979, Psychophysiology.

[15]  V. Bruce,et al.  Lost properties? Retrieval differences between name codes and semantic codes for familiar people , 1990 .

[16]  A. Young,et al.  Accessing stored information about familiar people , 1988 .

[17]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  N250 ERP Correlates of the Acquisition of Face Representations across Different Images , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Face Detection: Mapping Human Performance , 2003, Perception.

[19]  A W Young,et al.  Naming and Categorizing Faces and Written Names , 1986, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[20]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[21]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[22]  David I. Donaldson,et al.  Examining the neural basis of episodic memory: ERP evidence that faces are recollected differently from names , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  Joseph Dien,et al.  Issues in the application of the average reference: Review, critiques, and recommendations , 1998 .

[24]  Gillian Cohen,et al.  Why is it difficult to put names to faces , 1990 .

[25]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Brain events related to normal and moderately scrambled faces. , 1996, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[26]  Florence Thibaut,et al.  ERPs ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILIARITY AND DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY DURING FACE RECOGNITION , 2002, The International journal of neuroscience.

[27]  V. Bruce,et al.  Identity priming in the recognition of familiar faces. , 1985, British journal of psychology.

[28]  Mohamed Rebaï,et al.  The effects of inversion and eye displacements of familiar and unknown faces on early and late-stage ERPs. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[29]  E Donchin,et al.  P300 and stimulus categorization: two plus one is not so different from one plus one. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[30]  D. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect: Configuration enhances detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Stefan R Schweinberger,et al.  N200, N250r, and N400 event-related brain potentials reveal three loci of repetition priming for familiar names. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  M. Tarr,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area is Part of a Network that Processes Faces at the Individual Level , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  A. Burton,et al.  Event-related brain potential evidence for a response of inferior temporal cortex to familiar face repetitions. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  H. P. Bahrick,et al.  Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. , 1975 .

[35]  Ken A Paller,et al.  Neural correlates of person recognition. , 2003, Learning & memory.

[36]  G. Rousselet,et al.  Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[37]  V. Bruce,et al.  Putting names to faces: A review and tests of the models , 2000 .

[38]  M. Eimer Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[39]  Tim Valentine,et al.  The cognitive psychology of proper names: On the importance of being Ernest , 1996 .

[40]  Marcia Grabowecky,et al.  Electrophysiological Correlates of Recollecting Faces of Known and Unknown Individuals , 2000, NeuroImage.

[41]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological Studies of Face Perception in Humans , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[42]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Capgras delusion: a window on face recognition , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  P Ullsperger,et al.  P3 varies with stimulus categorization rather than probability. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[44]  M. Bindemann,et al.  Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[45]  A. Young,et al.  Putting names to faces , 1987 .

[46]  Markus F. Neumann,et al.  N250r and N400 ERP correlates of immediate famous face repetition are independent of perceptual load , 2008, Brain Research.

[47]  A W Ellis,et al.  Two loci of repetition priming in the recognition of familiar faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  J. Tanaka The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[49]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[50]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[51]  A. M. Burton,et al.  I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: a simple explanation? , 1992, British journal of psychology.