Visual Expertise with Pictures of Cars Correlates with RT Magnitude of the Car Inversion Effect

In their seminal study Diamond and Carey (1986, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115 107–117) found a larger inversion effect for dog pictures in dog experts than novices, supporting a role of visual expertise in the observation of particularly large inversion effects for faces. However, subsequent studies have provided mixed results, and very few have compared the inversion effects for faces and familiar non-face object categories. Here we tested the effect of inversion on faces and cars in car experts and novices, using a delayed matching task across viewpoint changes. Inversion affected accuracy much more for pictures of faces than of cars for both groups, with no interaction between expertise and category. However, for car experts only there was a significant correlation between the magnitude of the inversion cost in RT for car pictures and the level of expertise as measured in an independent task. These observations support the view that the particularly large inversion effect found for faces is related to expert visual processes which can be at least partially recruited to process other non-face object categories.

[1]  Jesse S. Husk,et al.  Inverting houses and textures: Investigating the characteristics of learned inversion effects , 2007, Vision Research.

[2]  M. Tarr,et al.  Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

[5]  G. McClelland,et al.  Negative Consequences of Dichotomizing Continuous Predictor Variables , 2003 .

[6]  A. Young,et al.  ARE FACES SPECIAL , 1989 .

[7]  M. Tarr,et al.  Expertise Training with Novel Objects Leads to Left-Lateralized Facelike Electrophysiological Responses , 2002, Psychological science.

[8]  Hervé Abdi,et al.  What Are the Routes to Face Recognition , 2003 .

[9]  David K. A. Barnes,et al.  correction: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[10]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  M. Tarr,et al.  FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  A. Young,et al.  In the Eye of the Beholder: The Science of Face Perception , 1998 .

[13]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.

[14]  T. Busey,et al.  Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts , 2005, Vision Research.

[15]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  T. Valentine.  Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[17]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[18]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks , 2007, Cognition.

[19]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognizing familiar faces: the role of distinctiveness and familiarity. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[20]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  G. Loftus,et al.  Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. , 2004, Psychological review.

[22]  I. Gauthier,et al.  How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? , 2002, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[23]  J. Sergent.  An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

[24]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Face-specific configural processing of relational information. , 2006, British journal of psychology.

[25]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[26]  B. Rossion.  Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[27]  D. B. Bender,et al.  Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the Macaque. , 1972, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  K. F. Scapinello,et al.  The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli , 1970 .

[29]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  V Bruce,et al.  Configural Features in the Context of Upright and Inverted Faces , 2001, Perception.

[31]  J. Keenan,et al.  Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[32]  I. Biederman,et al.  The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces , 2007, Vision Research.

[33]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect? , 2008 .

[34]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Expertise in Person Recognition , 1992 .

[35]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology When Inverted Faces Are Recognized: the Role of Configural Information in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[36]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[37]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  G. Hole,et al.  Featural and Configurational Processes in the Recognition of Faces of Different Familiarity , 2000, Perception.

[39]  Sam S. Rakover,et al.  Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[41]  Marlene Behrmann,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article EXPERTISE IN TACTILE PATTERN RECOGNITION , 2022 .

[42]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[43]  Yaoda Xu.  Revisiting the role of the fusiform face area in visual expertise. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[44]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986 .

[45]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Expertise in object and face recognition , 1997 .

[46]  A. Young,et al.  Handbook of Research on Face Processing , 1989 .

[47]  Joachim Bodamer,et al.  Die Prosop-Agnosie , 2004, Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten.

[48]  I. Nachson.  On the modularity of face recognition: the riddle of domain specificity. , 1995, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[49]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Long-term Expertise with Artificial Objects Increases Visual Competition with Early Face Categorization Processes , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.